IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.506, 731 AND 938 OF 2004 AND WRIT APPEAL No.2294 OF 2003 AND WRIT PETITION 7613 OF 2004 W.A. No.506 of 2004: BETWEEN: Jonnada Ram Reddy S/o. Chandra Reddy …. Appellant AND The Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad and Others …. Respondents W.A. No.731 of 2004: BETWEEN: J. Satyanarayana Murthy S/o. Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy and Others …. Appellants AND The Government of Andrha Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Builds, Hyderabad and Others. …. Respondents W.A. No.938 of 2004: BETWEEN: M/s. Sivarama Krishna Colony Welfare Association, Rep. by its President Sri E. Shekar and Others …. Appellants AND The Government of Andrha Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Builds, Hyderabad and Others. …. Respondents W.A. No.2294 of 2003: BETWEEN: T.V. Acharyulu S/o. T.S. Acharyulu and Others …. Appellants AND The Government of Andrha Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Builds, Hyderabad and Others. …. Respondents W.P. No.7613 of 2004: BETWEEN: G. Rajeshwar Rao S/o. Late G.S.R. Murthy …. Appellants AND The Government of Andrha Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Builds, Hyderabad and Others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.506, 731 AND 938 OF 2004 AND WRIT APPEAL No.2294 OF 2003 AND WRIT PETITION 7613 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The Writ Appeal Nos. 506, 731 & 938 of 2004 and 2294 of 2003 are filed by the appellants / petitioners in W.P. Nos.5322 & 2555 2003 and 20220 & 11003 of 2002 respectively, against the common order dated 10-11-2003 in W.P. No.5322 of 2003 and batch while the W.P. No.7613 of 2004 is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in consuming the private patta lands and houses, House plots of the petitioners for re-fixing the Full Tank Level (for short ‘FTL’) limits of Pedda Cheruvu Tank and for construction of a bund on the re-fixed FTL level, without acquiring the private lands and houses under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents either to pay compensation to them as market value or in the alternative permit them to enjoy their private lands and houses in Nacharam Village Ranga Reddy District by providing appropriate approach and other facilities and also permit them to make constructions in the present vacant plots. 2. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions, against which the writ appeals arose and in the writ petition being the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the writ petitions. 4. The case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge is that they are owners of various extents of the lands in different survey numbers situated in Nacharam and Uppal Revenue villages. It is also contended that the official respondents have undertaken demarcation of the FTL of a tank known as Pedda Cheruvu and that during the course of fixing and demarcation of the FTL, the respondents have included the lands of the petitioners and thereby they became landless. It is also the case of the petitioners before the leaned single Judge that the lands in dispute are the patta lands and they have purchased them from the tenants who were in possession and subsequently got patta certificates under Section 38-E of the Andrha Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act and that they were cultivating the lands and due to fixation of FTL level, they have deprived of the use of their land and eke out livelihood. 5. The respondents filed the counter affidavit before the learned single Judge stating that the lands within the FTL were not permitted to be used, as they were detrimental to the safety and existence of the tanks, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (for short ‘the Act’). It is further their case that patta cannot be granted in water spread areas and if granted, it shall be for a limited purpose. 6. The learned single Judge on extensive consideration of submissions of both sides, had observed that as per the provisions of the Act, the FTL has been fixed up and it is also observed that on the directions issued by the then Revenue Minister, the Collector addressed a letter dated 26-12-1994 directing restriction of the FTL from Acs.147.00 to 68-00. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that even in Nizam’s Rule, there was a perfect legal regime to maintain the tanks. Referring to Section 3(a), which defines Irrigation works to mean to include all categories of reservoirs, tanks, canals, rivers, streams, lakes etc., learned single Judge also has observed that any finding as to the exact water-spread area of the tank has to based on an examination of the original records relating to the tank, location of the lands of the appellants and the limits that are fixed by the revenue authorities. The learned Single Judge having gone through the maps and sketches drawn by the respondents, fixing the FTL Limits, has observed that if the appellants feel aggrieved thereby, they have to avail the remedy under common law. As a necessary out of the said findings, the learned Single Judge further observed that insofar as the aspect of their lands being submerged wholly or partly, are within the FTL, cannot be decided any further inasmuch as the nature of their entitlement to receive compensation therefor, would again depend on the nature of the patta granted to the predecessors in title. 7. Under the above premise, the learned single Judge has chosen to dispose of the writ petitions by observing that the petitioners, who disputed the correctness of the demarcation of the FTL of the Pedda Cheruvu shall file suits as provided for under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act and on filing of such suits, if it emerges that the lands of the petitioners wholly or in part, are outside the FTL as fixed by the respondents, the respondents shall have to undertake necessary correction and if they want to maintain the same FTL, they shall have to pay the compensation to the concerned, whose lands were affected by fixing the FTL. The learned single Judge further observed that the nature of rights to be enjoyed by the petitioners would depend on the nature of pattas held by their predecessors in title and that for that purpose, they shall have to approach the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District with an application and such adjudication shall be undertaken by the Collector by examining the entire records by taking into account the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act and pending such exercise, the respondents shall have to take steps to restore the tank without changing the nature of the lands claimed by the petitioners. 8. Aggrieved thereby, these writ appeals are filed by the appellants. 9. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / writ petitioners that the lands of the appellants are patta lands and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No.506 of 2004 submits that one society namely ‘Shiva Rama Krishna Cooperative Housing Society’, which purchased vast land from the original owners and, therefore, it challenged granting of patta certificates to the protected tenants over the land it has purchased, including the land of the appellant, which was erroneously rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was further confirmed on appeal. He further submits that when some of the purchasers from that appellant Society as well as the Khapra Municipality tried to interfere with the possession of the land of the appellant, he filed a suit in O.S. No.348 of 1995 and the same was decreed in favour of the Appellant, who attained finality. It is also submitted that the appellant had been in possession of the said land since 1978. Learned counsel filed the patta certificates issued in favour of the appellant. 11. But, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the Government has issued sikham pattas to the appellants over the said lands and that the pattedars are at liberty to cultivate the lands only when the water recedes from the lands. In support of his contention, certain maps and sketches have also been filed before us. 12. We have gone through the patta certificates produced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No. 5322 of 2003 and also the maps and sketches filed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 13. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel Sri V.Venkataramana that the Government has initiated land acquisition proceedings. As can be seen factual matrix, whether the land now being claimed by the appellants and affected due to the FTL, is a shikam patta or dry patta. This aspect of the lis cannot be adjudicated under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as it is purely a question of fact, which has to be gone into by the appropriate forum. The rights, if any, accrued to the appellants involve questions to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate forum. 14. In the above circumstances, in an extraordinary proceedings, we cannot deal with the disputed questions of fact in the present writ appeals. Consequently, the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J November 16, 2009. KTL