(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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners herein for an extent of 28 1/2 cents approximately 1,344 sq.yds covered by Survey Nos. 8/1AI and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthy Village. Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam after considering the representation dated 26.6.2022 submitted by the Petitioner herein to the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the compensation to the petitioners in lieu of land to an extent of 28 1/2 cents (approximately 1,344 sq.yds) covered by Survey Nos. 8/1AI and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam and pass Prayer is amended as per the Order of this Court, dt.11.10.2023 vide order passed in I.A.1 of 2023.

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the representation dated 26.6.2022 submitted by the 1 st Respondent for payment of compensation in lieu of land to an extent of 28Y2 cents (approximately 1344 sq.yds) covered by Survey No.8/1A1 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying compensation to the Petitioners herein for an extent of 28 1/2 cents (approximately 1,344 sq. yards) covered by Sy. Nos 8/1A1 and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam after considering the representation dated 26.06.2022 submitted by the Petitioner herein to the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the compensation to the petitioners in lieu of the land to an extent of 28 1/2 cents (approximately 1,344 sq. yards) covered by Sy. Nos 8/1A1 and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case" in place of It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying compensation to the Petitioners herein for an extent of 28 1/2 cents (approximately 1,344 sq. yards) covered by Sy. Nos 8/1A1 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam after considering the representation dated 26.06.2022 submitted by the Petitioner herein to the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the compensation to the petitioners in lieu of the land to an extent of 28 1/2 cents (approximately 1,344 sq. yards) covered by Sy. Nos 8/1A1 of Dondaparthy Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 Pleased to grant leave to the respondent No. 4 to place on record the counter affidavit in WP no. 23247 of 2022 and pass)

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the respondents' inaction in paying compensation for the petitioners' land measuring Ac. 0.28 ½ cents in Sy.No.8/1A1 and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthi Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to release the compensation in lieu of the land admeasuring Ac. 0.28 ½ cents, Sy. Nos. 8/1A1 and 8/1A2 of Dondaparthi Village, Seetammadhara Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent issued a notification on 07.04.2005 proposing to acquire Ac.0.40 cents of land belonging to the petitioners for the construction of houses for the weaker section. Aggrieved by the notification, the petitioners filed WP No. 13171 of 2005 challenging it. The petitioners also filed WP.No.13288 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondents not to make any constructions over the petitioner’s property without the acquisition of the same. This Court disposed off both the writ petitions vide a common order dated 01.07.2014. This Court directed the respondent authorities to determine the compensation and pay it to the rightful owners within three months. WP.No.13288 of 2005 was disposed of duly recording the submissions of the 2nd respondent that during the pendency of the writ petition, the construction was completed, and in view of the serious dispute with regard to title, it left it open for the petitioners to establish their title before the competent Court.

3. The petitioners filed CC.No.1761 of 2015 for not determining the compensation payable to the petitioners. The contempt case was closed after the petitioners agreed to receive the TDR for an extent of land measuring Ac. 0.11½ cents, which was taken over by the AP Housing Corporation for the construction of houses for the weaker section. It is submitted that the petitioners were under the impression that out of the proposed Ac. 0.40 cents for acquisition, only land admeasuring Ac. 0.11½ cents was taken by the respondents, and as such entered into an agreement on 09.12.2017. Considering the arrangement between the petitioners and the respondents, the contempt case was closed.

4. The petitioners have no dispute with regard to the Ac. 0.11½ cents of land; however, the petitioners are concerned with non-payment of compensation or issuance of TDR certificates for the remaining extent of Ac. 0.28½ cents of land, which is not in possession of the petitioners in pursuance of the acquisition notification.

5. The learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent submits that only Ac. 0.11½ cents was acquired and the balance Ac. 0.28½ cents was subject to a sale deed executed by the petitioners and others in favour of Devansh Exports vide a registered sale deed dated 23.04.2008. The schedule property measures 1125 square yards in each of the sale deeds. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any compensation as the petitioners have no land left, and the petitioners have also executed sale deeds in favour of a third party for a valuable sale consideration.

6. That apart, the respondents have conducted a survey of the land and found that Ac. 0.39 cents of land is vacant in Sy.No.8/1A2; however, the Board of M/s.Gayatri Constructions is installed over the same. It is also submitted that the petitioners would have to categorically establish their claim before this Court to seek the relief as sought.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent. Perused the material on record.

8. The acquisition notification 2005 was challenged by the petitioners, and this Court directed the respondents to determine the compensation and pay the eligible party the compensation. Admittedly, the petitioners entered into an agreement and accepted TDRs for land admeasuring Ac.0.11 ½ cents in the year 2007. The petitioners claim that the Ac. 0.28 ½ cents, which was acquired by the respondents though not utilised, was still in possession of the respondents and as such, are entitled to compensation.

9. The stand of the respondents is categorically clear that the respondents have utilised only Ac.0.11½ cents of land and constructed the houses for the weaker section. It is also categorically clear that the petitioners entered into an agreement on 09.02.2017 and accepted the compensation in the form of TDR bonds to the extent of Ac. 0.11½ cents. The agreement dated 09.02.2017 does not address the remaining extent of Ac. 0.28½ cents of land.

10. The petitioners are aware of the counter filed by the respondent, and there is no reply with regard to the execution of sale deeds in favour of Devansh Exports in the year 2008, totalling 2250 square yards. The survey report submitted by the respondents would also clarify that the Ac. 0.39 cents of land in Sy.No.8/1A2 is vacant; however, the board of M/s.Gayatri constructions are said to be erected there. There is no land in Sy.No.8/1A1, which is a private land, as per the report submitted to this Court, the entire extent of one acre land in Sy.No.8/1A1 is poramboke land and Government land. Out of Ac.0.58 cents of land in Sy.No.8/1A2 Ac.0.39 cents is shown as vacant land, over which the board of M/s.Gayatri Construction is erected. Ac.0.13 cents of land is used for J.N.R.M Houses Block-3 and remaining Ac.0.06 cents of land is classified as GEDDA.

11. It is not explained as to what prevented the petitioners from referring to the Ac. 0.28½ cents of land while executing the agreement on 09.02.2017. There is no explanation with regard to the execution of sale deeds in favour of a third party and the non-availability of the land as on the ground for the petitioners to take over the same.

12. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit stating that the petitioners hold an extent of Ac. 1.47 cents in Sy. No.8/1A2 and Ac. 0.58 cents in Sy. No.8/1A1. The same is contrary to the survey report submitted by the respondents. The survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioners as well. It is for the petitioners to identify where exactly the property of the petitioner is and take steps to reclaim the same. These issues would have to be adjudicated before the competent civil Court as the petitioners would have to reclaim the land if any available and entitled for. These aspects cannot be gone into and determined by this Court in the writ jurisdiction.

13. On the facts of the case, the claim of the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent authority to pay compensation to an extent of Ac.0.28½ cents of land is concerned, the respondents having maintained silence at the time of accepting TDR bonds to an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents by executing an agreement on 09.02.2017 cannot after a lapse of five years by filing the present writ petition seek a direction regarding payment of compensation for the Ac.0.28½ cents of land.

14. However, considering the submission of the petitioners that their valuable land admeasuring Ac. 0.28½ cents is not available on the ground; it is left open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the competent Court for reclaiming their land. As the survey reports are disputed by the petitioners, this Court does not endorse the survey reports submitted by the respondents as conclusive or binding on the petitioners. It is left open to the petitioners to seek a comprehensive survey of the entire extent of their land, and, upon receipt of the survey report, they may take appropriate steps before the competent Court to reclaim the extent of land belonging to them if any available and identified.

15. It is for the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law for getting the entire property belonging to the petitioners surveyed for the purpose of identification of vacant land if any available on ground. It is also left open for the petitioners to approach the competent Court for reclaiming possession of the said land subject to the petitioners able to satisfy the Court with regard to the title of the said property.

16. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.