IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25897 of 2008 Between: Budharam Patel S/o.Dhannaji R/o.Karvetnagar village and Mandal Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (LA),Chittoor District,Chittoor 2 The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District 3 The Tahsildar,Karvetnagar Mandal, Karvetnagar Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in acquiring the assigned land admeasuring Ac.4.33 cents in dry S.No.591/3 situated at Karvetinagar village & Mandal, Chittoor District contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act Chittoor district contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, communicating the impugned proceedings inRoc.No.A/640/2004 dated 24.5.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent on 17.11.2008 and also the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the said land as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles, 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned proceedings and consequently direct the respondents not dispossess the petitioner from the said land. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25897 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Karvetnagar village in Chittoor District. He was assigned land admeasuring Acs.4.33 in survey No.591/3 some time in 1990. Statedly he has grown mango trees. The land was proposed for construction of Government Degree College. When ZPTC President, Tahsildar (third respondent) and other senior citizens of the village requested him to surrender the land. He agreed to surrender the land allegedly in exchange of alternative land. In furtherance of such understanding, he handed over possession in May, 2005. However, he contends that resumption of this land by third respondent without invoking provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is illegal. It appears while handing over the land, he surrendered his Pattadar Pass Book, D-form patta and other documents. When he requested for return of the same, they were not given. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21152 of 2008 for return of various documents. This Court dismissed the said writ petition giving liberty to petitioner to challenge proceeding, dated 24.05.2005 whereby and whereunder DKT patta was cancelled. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition. The impugned order, dated 24.05.2005 issued by third respondent would show that petitioner agreed to surrender the land to Government for public purpose and surrendered D-form patta, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in original. When this is pointed out, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as promised the petitioner was not allotted alternative land. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order would show that no such promise or undertaking was given to petitioner to allot alternative land. Indeed, as admitted by him in the writ affidavit when ZPTC President and other senior citizens approached him, he agreed to surrender the land. In such an event, he ought to have insisted upon Tahsildar giving a letter agreeing to provide alternative land. Be that as it is, now that petitioner claims that he is landless poor person, that he has surrendered his assigned land, he is entitled for compensation as per the principles laid down by this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v Mekala Pandu[1]. If petitioner is not willing to accept compensation, he is given liberty to make representation to first respondent for allotment of alternative land and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.11.2008 pln [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)