APHC010596642007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13266/2007 Between: 1. Pinajari Bashu (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The Tahsildar (M.R.O.), Dhone and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B S VENKATA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to restore the possession of the petitioner land in Survey No.479/H3 an extent of Ac.3.00 situated at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District or alternative giving suitable valuable land or pay compensation as on today market value to the petitioner land an extent of Ac.3.00 in Survey No.479/H3 situated at Dhone Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, and pass such other order or 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, 1st petitioner Pinajari Bashu died and his legal representatives Pinjari Abdulla and Pinjari Usman are added as petitioners 2 and 3, as per order, dated 22.11.2024. 3. The 1st petitioner claims to have acquired an extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No.479/H3 of Dhone village, through a registered sale deed, dated 27.10.1986, from Maddi Parvathamma and was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. A part of land in Survey Nos.479 and 480 was acquired for the purpose of expansion of N.H.7, in which, even a part of petitioners’ land was affected by award No.15/86, dated 17.09.1986, compensation was paid to the predecessors of the 1st petitioner. That being so, by proceedings in Rc.B.534/2005, dated 14.08.2005, the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone had resumed various extents of lands in favour of the Government and taken possession to provide house-site pattas to the poor, even the petitioners land in Survey No.479/H3 was resumed. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st petitioner had filed W.P. No.19378 of 2005 and even the other persons affected by the said proceedings of the Mandal Revenue 3 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 Officer, Dhone, filed W.P. Nos.18630 and 18990 of 2005. This Court disposed of the above writ petitions by a common order, dated 12.04.2006, relegating the petitioners to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the proceedings of the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, dated 14.08.2005, and until the same is decided, status quo as to the possession was directed to be maintained. In pursuance to the same, the petitioners preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same came to be dismissed, vide proceedings in Rc.C.1610/2006, dated 30.12.2006, confirming the orders of the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer. The 1st petitioner and so also the other two affected persons preferred appeals before the 3rd respondent Joint Collector, which also came to be dismissed by separate orders even dated 09.04.2007. In all these three proceedings, the claim of the petitioners and others that the subject properties were private properties and not that of the Government came to be rejected based on entries in the R.S.R. The two other affected persons aggrieved by orders even dated 09.04.2007, in proceedings in Rc.E2/143/1/2007 and E2/785/2006, preferred W.P.Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007. Challenging the proceedings in Rc.E2/143/2007, dated 09.04.2007, of the 3rd 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 respondent Joint Collector, the 1st petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the facts in all three writ petitions are the same and that the title to the respective properties in all these three matters traces to the sale deed, dated 15.08.1919 and it is claimed that the subject land is not Government land, but has been private land all through and that several transactions have taken place from time to time. As the petitioners’ land has been resumed and has already been allotted to third parties for housing purpose, which is done without acquiring the same, it is claimed that they are entitled to compensation in accordance with law. 6. It is further urged that the other two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007 came to be disposed of by a common order, dated 18.09.2017, holding that the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, in resuming the lands, as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and further by the Joint 5 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 Collector, were illegal, improper and incorrect and thereby, the petitioners claim for payment of compensation for the value of the land was directed to be considered and as even the present facts are similar, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray that this writ petition also be disposed in terms of the aforesaid common order, dated 18.09.2017. 7. Opposing the above submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners though claim that the 1st petitioner had purchased the land as claimed in the writ petition under a registered sale deed, dated 27.10.1986, the same has not been produced or filed along with the writ petition. Besides the said objection, she would also contend that the resumption order, dated 14.08.2005, passed by the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer does not disclose or reflect the name of the 1st petitioner, and in the absence of which, it cannot be said that the petitioners have any right to claim the compensation. In so far as the common order, dated 18.09.2017, passed in W.P. Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007, is concerned, she would submit that those two writ petitions also relate to Survey Nos.479 and 480 of Dhone Village and the present writ petition also concerns part of Survey No.479. 6 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 9. In the earlier round of litigation, the 1st petitioner along with two other affected persons viz., L.Hasan Khan & 2 others and S.Kamal Saheb and another, preferred W.P. Nos.19378, 18630 and 18990 of 2005 respectively, challenging the order, dated 14.08.2005, passed by the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the respective lands. The same were disposed of by a common order, dated 12.04.2006, relegating them to avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool and till such time, status quo with respect to the possession was directed to be maintained. The offshoot of the same resulted in aforesaid three sets of petitioners preferring independent appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, which came to be dismissed, and thereafter, three sets of further appeals were preferred before the Joint Collector, Kurnool, which were also dismissed in separate proceedings, even dated 09.04.2007. The three claims concern with Survey Nos.479/H3 and 480 of Dhone village and source of title also relates to the sale deed, dated 15.08.1919. Three independent writ petitions were instituted against the aforesaid dismissal orders, two of which came to be disposed of in W.P. Nos.10092 and 10129 of 7 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 2007, by a common order, dated 18.09.2017. In the said common order, this Court, having considered the rival submissions, came to the conclusion that the subject property was private land and though the Government has tried to lay claim, the same could not have been done by initiating proceedings as was done by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone, and confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector, Kurnool, which is illegal, improper and incorrect rather the State had an option of approaching the competent Court for declaration of title and having not done that they could not have resumed the petitioners land. Ultimately, the aforesaid writ petitions came to be allowed and having regard to the fact that the subject lands were already allotted to landless poor, the alternative prayer of the petitioners therein for payment of compensation was directed to be considered by the Joint Collector. 10. As the facts in the present writ petition are similar and since the order passed by the 1st respondent Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the lands per se is common in both these cases, which further resulted in orders of respondents 1 and 2 confirming the same, following the common order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid common order. The common order, dated 18.,09.2017, passed in W.P. 8 CGR, J. W.P. No.13266 of 2007 Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007, is made part of the present order and a copy of the same be enclosed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Joint Collector, Kurnool, to consider the alternative request of the petitioners either to pay compensation to the value of the land as on today or to allot alternative land to the same extent. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:20.01.2025. Note: Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the common order, dated 18.,09.2017, passed in W.P. Nos.10092 and 10129 of 2007. B/O cs