IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29347 of 2014 BETWEEN J.Veera Reddy AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner himself states in the affidavit that he is the owner and possessor of lands to an extent of Ac.4-67 cents in survey No.26/B and Ac.0-33 cents in survey No.27/1 of Peddakothiliki, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District. It appears that the entire above extents were acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to backward class people. The acquisition award No.2/92, dated 03.08.1992, had attained finality and petitioner was paid compensation at Rs.8,522.52ps. per acre. Petitioner, however, states that though the lands were acquired, possession thereof was not taken and he continued to cultivate the said lands till this date. The impugned notice being R.C.B.126/2014, dated 03.07.2014, was issued by respondent No.3-Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner to vacate the said lands as they were already acquired Government lands, failing which criminal prosecution will be lodged. It appears that petitioner has filed a detailed representation, dated 07.07.2014, before respondent No.2-District Collector requesting him to consider re-allotment and assignment of lands to him and he has offered to return the compensation amount also. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the aforesaid impugned notice.
3. I do not see any illegality or arbitrariness in issuance of the said impugned notice inasmuch as admittedly the lands are acquired from the petitioner and he was paid the compensation. If the petitioner seeks reassignment of lands to him on the ground that he and his family are now landless poor persons, it is open for respondent No.2 to consider his case and dispose of his representation, referred to above.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s aforesaid representation, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 26, 2014 Note:-
Furnish copy by three days.
{B/o} LMV