IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION NO. 24383 OF 2009
Between:
Smt. Lakshmi Devamma & Ors. … Petitioners V/s.
District Collector, Mahboobnagar district & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G. Purshotham Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue for R-1 to R-7 GP for Irrigation & CAD for R8 & R9 The court made the following : [order follows] HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION NO. 24383 OF 2009
O R D E R :
The petitioners pray for mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in protecting the lands covered by survey Nos. 145, 146/2 and 160 of Nandimalla village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahboobnagar district, which was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement at Nandimalla cross-road and the petitioners pray for a consequential direction to the respondents to survey the land acquired as per award dated 30/09/1994 bearing No.15/1994 and carry out all consequential and necessary acts to delete the names of original pattedars and mutate the name of patta holders in ROR.
2. The prayer is a sufficient indication on the circumstances, scope and object of the writ petition. The first petitioner is the sarpanch of Eerladinne Gram Panchayat, Narva Mandal, Mahboobnagar district. The second and third respondents are residents of Priyadarshini Rehabilitation and Resettlement Center, Nandimalla cross-road, Phase-I. The averments on the inaction briefly stated are that an extent of Acs:48-02 guntas in survey Nos. 142, 145, 146/2, 155/3, 159 and 160 of Nandimalla village, Atmakur Mandal was acquired through award No. 15/1994 dated 30/9/1994 for accommodating beneficiaries under Relief and Rehabilitation Scheme. The first phase of house-plots was developed in survey Nos. 145, 146/2, 159 and 160. Accordingly, lay out was developed and against respondents the following acts of commission or omission pointed out against the development of first layout :
a. At the time of acquisition of land, sub-division of survey numbers falling under part acquisition was done only on paper. No physical survey was made and no demarcation was made and no boundaries were fixed on site.
b. The engineering department failed to fix the boundary stones while preparing the layout and providing other amenities like roads etc. in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Center.
c. No steps were taken by the revenue authorities to issue supplementary sethwar for sub-division of part survey numbers acquired under the award.
d. No steps were taken by the revenue authorities to delete the names of the original pattedars in the revenue records for the acquired lands. Till today, the names of the original landlords from whom the lands were acquired are being continued.
e. Though patta certificates were issued to the beneficiaries, their names are not recorded in the revenue records till today.
3. The petitioners claim to have been representing and requesting the authorities to set the above omissions and commissions right and also issue consequential orders as are deemed fit and necessary.
4. The writ petition is filed complaining inaction in protecting the land acquired through award No. 15/1994 and also that the respondents are not acting on the representation filed by the petitioners. This court through docket order dated 14/12/2014, directed the respondents to file counter-affidavit on or before 12/12/2014 in default of filing the counter-affidavit, this court directed to personal appearance of respondent No.3 and 7 to 9. The respondents filed counter-affidavit and also placed before this court the material in support of completion of all acts., It is their case that by and large stated in the writ affidavit contains mere apprehensions and are imaginary. As against each one of the acts of commission or omission, the respondents have given the details and time of compliance. The encroachment complained into the acquired land is also denied. Not only the house-site pattas have been granted/allotted to the beneficiaries but physical possession of house sites was also handed over to the displaced families. The authorities have provided civil amenities and the house plots are now developed into pucca houses. It is stated that by stating misleading averments, the present writ petition is filed.
5. I have perused the counter-affidavit filed by District Collector/first respondent as well as 9th respondent/Executive Engineer, R & B Department. Perused the other material placed before the court.
6. Had it been a case where for collateral benefit or intent casual averments are made by the petitioners, this court would have taken serious note while deciding the cause complained in the writ petition. Indisputably, the petitioners are beneficiaries at Priyadarshini Rehabilitation and Resettlement Center, Nandimalla cross-road, Phase-I. The writ petition was filed in the year 2009, and at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioners may have a few grievances and are completed by respondents during the pendency of writ petition. By taking note of reply of the respondents, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE S.V. BHATT 12/12/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION NO. 24383 OF 2009
Circulation No.233 Date:12/12/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43