HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29048 of 2009 Date : 30-11-2011 Between: V. Sreenivasulu and others .. Petitioners And The District Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Land Acquisition for 2-3 K.M. to 293 K.M. of NH-7, Kurnool and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.0-80 cents and Ac.0-64 cents in Sy.Nos.243/1 and 344/1, Ac.0-13 cents, Ac.0-03 cents and Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.Nos.258A/3, 258A/4 and 258B/1B respectively and Ac.0-34 cents in Sy.No.304/2 of Amakatadi village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The above mentioned lands were acquired for the purpose of extension of NH-7 from 203 K.M. to 293 K.M. In the notiﬁcation issued by the respondents under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"), the above mentioned lands were shown as the petitioners’ patta lands. However, while issuing declaration under Section 3D of the Act and passing the award, these lands were shown as Government lands and no award has been passed in respect of the same. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the said property changed hands from time to time and they have purchased the same under registered sale deeds vide document Nos.1301/2003, dated 9-6- 2003; 1052/1998 dated 8-5-1998 and 2784/2002 dated 16-12-2004, respectively. The petitioners have therefore questioned the action of the respondents in treating the lands as Government lands and not paying the compensation. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the lands in question are classiﬁed as ‘assessed waste’ as per Re- settlement Register of Amakatadu village and that therefore the same were shown as Government lands in the declaration and excluded from the award. This Court has directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to produce the relevant revenue record to show that the lands in question belong to the Government. She has produced the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register (RSR), a perusal of which shows that the lands in question are shown as “G”, “Sa” under column No.4. The names of the pattadars have not been mentioned in column No.16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the entries in RSR are not conclusive proof of title (See: District Collector Vs. N. Krishna Mohan[1] and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and another[2]). Respondent No.2 ought to have examined the claim of the petitioners with reference to the documents held by them before taking a decision as to whether the lands are private lands or they belong to the Government. As this exercise is not undertaken, respondent No.2 is directed to hold the award enquiry afresh with respect to the lands in question and consider the claims of the petitioners. If respondent No.2 is satisﬁed that the acquired lands are not Government lands and that they are private patta lands, he shall pass a supplemental award within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. While considering the claims of the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall not be solely guided by the entries in the RSR. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2 after holding the fresh award enquiry, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.37672/2009 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 30-11-2011 AM [1] 2000(4) ALD 126 [2] 2001(3) ALD 600