IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17379 of 2014 BETWEEN G.Gunasekhar AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that he is a landless poor person and was assigned Ac.2-26 cents in survey No.302/1 and Ac.2-74 cents in Survey No.302/2A of Gandrajupalli Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, by way of a D.K.T.Patta, dated 30.06.1991.
It appears that the Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of various Government lands including assigned lands and petitioner’s assigned lands were also part of the said acquisition proceedings as the Government decided to allot the land for Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Petitioner was given a notice in April, 2007, requiring to show cause as to why his assignments should not be cancelled on account of the alienation of the land by the petitioner in violation of the conditions of assignment. It appears that the petitioner gave a detailed reply. But, however, resumption orders were passed against him on 27.06.2007. Questioning the same, petitioner preferred an appeal viz., D.Dis.B1/35/2010, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was, however, disposed of on 22.02.2011 remitting the matter to the Tahsildar, respondent No.4, for fresh consideration. It appears that the Tahsildar has not yet considered and passed a fresh order. Present writ petition, therefore, came to be filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid assigned lands and consequently sought direction for payment of ex gratia to him.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, state that based on the resumption order earlier passed on 27.06.2007, the lands were already assigned to APIIC covering a total extent of Ac.482.64 cents, which includes the lands assigned to the petitioner, and ex gratia was proposed to be paid to the petitioner. However, there was rival claim by another person, who filed W.P.No.9623 of 2008, and obtained interim direction not to pay ex gratia to the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner therein was purchaser of the land. Subsequently, it appears that the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.07.2008. Meanwhile, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer was allowed by remitting the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration and the Tahsildar is seized of the matter. It is stated that the same will be disposed of shortly.
4. It appears from the above, that though the land is claimed to have been taken possession, the ex gratia was not paid to the petitioner and that as the resumption order earlier passed is set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, fresh consideration is required to be made by the Tahsildar.
5. In the circumstances, therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.4, Tahsildar, to implement the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer in appeal viz. D.Dis.B1/35/2010, dated 22.02.2011, and pass appropriate orders thereon after notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The payment of ex gratia to the petitioner shall be subject to orders that would be passed by the Tahsildar.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 22, 2014 LMV