(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.A/146/2016, dated 16.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 in rejecting my claim for compensation for the land in an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy.No.238/2 (New. Sy.No.236/3) of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District, stating that the same does not belong to me and the Pattadar Passbook submitted by me is not genuine one quite contrary to the Orders, dated 18.02.2022 made in W.P.No.33282 of 2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to me under Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay me compensation for the land in an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy.No.238/2 (New Sy.No.236/3) of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by setting aside the proceedings in Rc. No.A/146/2016, dated 16.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.4.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider my claim for compensation for the land in an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy.No.238/2 (New Sy.No.236/3) of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.)
1. The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Rc.No. A/146/2016, dt. 16.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 in rejecting my claim for compensation for the land in an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy. No.238/2 (New. Sy. No. 236/3) of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District, stating that the same does not belong to me and the Pattadar Passbook submitted by me is not genuine one quite contrary to the Orders, dated 18.02.2022 made in W.P. No.33282 of 2016 on the file of this Hon’ble Court as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to me under Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay me compensation for the land in an extent of Ac.4.10 cents in Sy.No.238/2 (New Sy.No.236/3) of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.A/146/2016, dated 16.03.2024 issued by the respondent No. 4 and pass….”
2. Heard M/s. V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in an extent of Ac.4.10cents in Sy.No.238/2 of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District was originally assigned in favour of the petitioner vide DKT No.33/4/95 dated 22.3.1986. Since then the same is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and he also raised a mango orchid in the subject land. Recognizing the possession and enjoyment of the subject land, the revenue authorities mutated the name of the petitioner in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds vide khata no.261. After 2008, as requested by the Tahsildar and the Village Revenue Officer had sought the D-form pattas and pattadar pass book are surrendered to the Tahsildar. Thereafter survey has taken place and altered the survey numbers by inserting new survey numbers i.e. Sy.No.236/3 of Tatiparthi Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Tirupati District was also assigned, by altering the same in the D-form pattas and pattadar passbooks were also granted to the petitioner.
4. While things stood thus, in the year 2014, the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited laid Electric Transmission lines over the subject land and paid compensation of Rs.31,200/- through cheque bearing no.008175 dated 30.4.2014 as per Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. In the year 2016, when the respondent authorities are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without notice, the petitioner has constrained to file W.P.No.33282 of 2016. In the said Writ Petition, 4th respondent has filed his counter admitting the assignment granted in favour of the petitioner. But they have made a mention with regard to requisition made by Zonal Manager, APIIC Limited, Tirupati on 05.3.2015 for alienation of the land in an extent of Ac.382.09cents in Sy.No.63-3A of Tatiparthi Village as the land was allotted to APIIC as per G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Ass.1) Department dated 14.9.2012 for establishment of Industrial Park. Accordingly the District Collector, Chittoor allotted total extent of Ac.315.79cents in Sy.No. 129/6 etc including the subject land assigned to the petitioner in Tatiparthi Village and handed over to the Deputy Zonal Manager (A.M), APIIC, Tirupati.
6. Basing on the above averments made in the counter by respondent no.4, the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2022 wherein the Court has taken the averments made in the Writ Petition as well as the counter and also by relying on the document filed along with Writ Petition and passed the following order.
“The specific claim of the petitioner is that the land admeasuring Ac.4.10 cents in survey No. 238/2 (old) new survey No.236/3 situated in Tatiparthi village was assigned to the petitioner vide DKT No.33/4/95 dated 22.03.1986. Photostat copy of the said DKT Patta is placed on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner regarding the grant of assignment in favour of the petitioner for the said extent. Besides the above document, the petitioner also placed on record pattadar pass book and title deed issued in 5 favour of the petitioner for the land in survey No.236/3 for an extent of Ac.4.10 cents, notice under Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 dated 01.10.2013 by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited proposing to lay electrical line in the land and paid compensation of Rs.31,200/- vide cheque bearing No.008175 dated 30.04.2014. Apart from that, the other documents evidencing payment of land revenue to the Government and 10-1 adangal copy would disclose that DKT patta was granted to the petitioner assigning the land admeasuring Ac.4.10 cents in survey No.236/3 situated in Tatiparthi village. Thus, the petitioner could establish that patta was granted in his favour. The respondent No.4 denied the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. However, such dispute cannot be decided by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it is a disputed question of fact.
As seen from the material on record, more particularly about payment of compensation of Rs.31,200/- by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and payment of land revenue by the petitioner would clinchingly establish that the petitioner is in possession of the property, whereas the respondent No.4 contended that the property was allotted to APIIC, who in turn handed over possession to M/s Flora Ceramics Private Limited and M/s Khajaria Bathware Plants and this fact is also disputed by the petitioner while ascertaining that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. 6 But for one reason or the other, the petitioner did not produce a copy of No.2 adangal i.e., Cultivation Account of the village evidencing actual cultivation of the land by the petitioner which should establish actual possession and enjoyment of the property as on date. Therefore, the documents placed on record are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing the writ petition. Even assuming for a moment that DKT patta was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same was resumed invoking clause 17 of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 21.06.2016. Therefore, at best, the petitioner is entitled to claim such compensation on par with private patta land owners.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to claim compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 21.06.2016 on par with private patta land owners. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ petition.
7. Consequent to the said directions, the respondents have considered and passed an order on 16.3.2024 which is as follows:
“In obedience of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 22658/2023, dated: 26.09.2023, the application of Sri A.K. Bahamani S/o Imam Khan has been taken into notice and examined the case by conducting enquiry on the applicant and by verifying the connected records, field possession. During enquiry it is revealed that the case of the petitioner is not entitled for sanction of ex-gratia/compensation as the lands said to be assigned in favour of the Writ Petitioner were already resumed and reassigned in favour of others during 4th phase land distribution ie. during the year 2008 itself. Hence the application of Sri A.K. Bahamani S/o Imom Khan is here by rejected.
This order has been issued in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide Order dated: 18.02.2022 in WP No. 332382/2016 and Order dated: 26.09.2023 in W.P.No.22658/2023.
An appeal may lies before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasthi on this order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioners are not aware of the acquisition of the land by the authorities. Basing on the request made by APIIC, allotment of subject lands to APIIC for establishment of Industrial Park. Earlier litigation is only with regard to interference of the respondents by taking the averments made in the Court has disposed of the matter with a categorical direction declaring the petitioner is entitled for compensation. While deciding the matter the Court has also relied on that the compensation paid by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited on 01.10.2013.
9. Learned counsel further relied on the observations made by the Court became final and no appeal has been filed against the above said orders. When the Court has given clear findings with regard to possession as well as the title, the authorities are not entitled to take any second view without filing an appeal or review against the said orders. In fact in the earlier litigation, the Court has given a categorical finding not only with regard to title but with regard to possession also. In the said circumstances, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner and they are stopped to take any ‘U’ turn except to comply the orders passed by this Court by paying the compensation as per the provisions of Act 2013.
10. Reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has mainly relied on the averments made in the counter-affidavit at paragraph nos.6 to 9 which reads as follows:
“6. In reply to Para No.4, it is submitted that there happened no such exercise related to updation of survey numbers as stated by the petitioner. It is not correct that the over-writings in the D.K.T Patta and Pass book were done by the then Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer as alleged by the petitioner as any such corrections would have been carried out with proper attestation and updation of same in the office records. It is evident from the D.K.T Patta and Pass Book submitted by the petitioner that neither there is no attestation for the corrections made in thereof nor such corrections reflect in the office records. The submissions made by the petitioner with respect to updation of patta and pass book by the revenue authorities are all absolutely false and are made up by the petitioner with malicious intent.
7. In reply to Para No.5, it is submitted that the claim of the writ petitioner that he was sanctioned a compensation amount of Rs.31,200/-by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Is also doubtful. We are not aware of the basis on which the Power Grid Corporation Officials sanctioned the said compensation without verifying genuineness of the title documents in co-ordination with Revenue Authorities. Even for a moment if it is assumed that the said compensation was indeed awarded to the petitioner, the documents filed by the petitioner (P6) does not contain any survey number to add strength to the claim of the petitioner. In fact, the column “Survey Number” was left unfilled in the said document filed under P6.
8. In reply to Para No.6, it is submitted that it is true that the present writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P 33282 of 2016 on the file of this Hon’ble Court seeking to give directions to the revenue authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in subject lands. However, in the counter Affidavit filed by the then Tahsildar, it was nowhere mentioned that the assignment of subject land was made to the petitioner. It was clearly mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the said counter affidavit that no DKT patta was issued to the petitioner at any point of time and that the patta produced by the petitioner is fake. It was further mentioned in 6th paragraph of that counter affidavit that the subject land was assigned in favour of (1)S.Ademma W/o Adeppa Reddy (Sy. No. 238/2, Ac. 1-50), (2) Chenchu Lakshmi (Sy.No.238/3, Ac. 1-50) & 3. S.Chenchamma (Sy. No. 238/3, Ac. 1-64) in D.K.T No.s 506, 507 & 320/4/1417 respectively and that later the same were resumed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor in D.Dis. E4/13207/2010, dated 26.03.2011 wherein the above mentioned assignments and corresponding pattadar pass books were cancelled as per BSO-15(18) read with G.O.Ms. No.912 Revenue(B) Department, dt:02.08.1985.
9. In reply to Para No.7, it is submitted that the writ petitioner has mentioned only a part of the order of the Hon’ble court in the said W.P 33282 of 2016. The Hon’ble Court disposed off the said writ petition holding in conclusion that “As seen from the material on ground, more particularly about payment of compensation of Rs.31,200/- by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and payment of land revenue by the petitioner would clinchingly establish that the petitioner is in possession of the property, whereas the respondent No.4 contended that the property was allotted to APIIC, who in turn handed over possession to M/s Flora Ceramics Private Limited and M/s Khajaria Bathware Plants and this fact is also disputed by the petitioner while ascertaining that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. But for one reason or the other, the petitioner did not produce a copy of No.2 adangal i.e., Cultivation Account of the village evidencing actual cultivation of the land by the petitioner which should establish actual possession and enjoyment of the property as on date. Therefore, the documents placed on record are not sufficient sufficient to establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing the writ petition. Even assuming for a moment that DKT patta was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same was resumed invoking clause 17 of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated. 21.06.2016. Therefore, at best, the petitioner is entitled to claim such compensation on par with private patta land owners. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to claim compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 259, Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, and dated.21.06.2016 on par with private patta land owners. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ petition.”
11. As per the averments, it clearly discloses that there is no material available on record with regard to grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. In fact the original patta has been granted in the name of S.Chenchamma and the said pattas were resumed as per the BSO-15(18) read with G.O.Ms.No.912 Revenue (B) Department, dated 02.8.1985. After that there is no record available with regard to grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. But surprisingly, there is no mention with regard to grant of title deeds and also patta pass books to the petitioner. Further they have also mentioned about payment of compensation by the Power Grid Corporation.
12. The earlier Writ Petition is disposed of by the counter filed by the very same authority and once accepted with regard to pattas granted in favour of the petitioner and in fact even in this counter, there is no denial by the authorities with regard to the mutation of the revenue records in favour of the petitioner and granting of patta passbooks.
13. In view of the said circumstances and also on perusal of the orders. Passed by this Court more specifically at paragraph no.8 and 9 in W.P.No.33282 of 2016. The impugned orders are contrary to the observations made by above said judgment. Once the Court has observed with regard to title and possession in the above referred orders, the authorities have no other option except to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders/proceedings dated 16.3.2024 are set aside remanding the matter once again directing to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and also as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.33282 of 2016 and pass appropriate orders by releasing the compensation within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |