(Died) as v. Way, Erramanzil, Hyderbaad, Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. T he Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 6 in taking possession of the petitioners’ lands comprised in Survey Nos.62, 67 and 70 admeasuring Acs.4.28 guntas situated at Gundlapochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 6 to determine and pay the compensation to them as per Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. In their affidavit, the petitioners averred that they are the owners of the above mentioned land. They also stated that in the year 1999, they were granted pattadar passbooks under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; that without notice and without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents have utilized the said property for the purpose of work pertaining to National Highway No.7, leading from Hyderabd to Nagpur, and that to legal notice dated 15-02-2000 caused to be issued by petitioners, respondent No.5, reply dated 12-05-2000, claimed that the land belongs to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and that as such, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. As subsequent representations of the petitioners did not bear fruit, they filed the present writ petition for the reliefs as noted above. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of any of the functionaries of NHAI. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is, inter alia, averred that the total width of the National Highway is 250 feet for many decades; that the land to the said width is under the possession of the National Highways; that Hyderabad Urban Development Authority raised green belt plantation with barbed wire fence around the said land and that the NHAI is the absolute owner of the said land to the width of 125 feet on either side from the centre of the road. He specifically denied the claim of the petitioners that they are the pattadars and that they are in possession of the land. At the hearing, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, leaned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that while the NHAI failed to file any counter-affidavit, respondent No.5 denied the title of the petitioners without any basis whatsoever. He further urged that the entries in the pahanies filed by the petitioners from the years 1980-81 and the pattadar passbooks issued in their favour in the year 1999 conclusively prove that the petitioners are the owners of the property in question and that therefore, denial of the property to them without paying compensation in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Though respondent No.5 alone filed the counter-affidavit, he has taken the stand that the land is vested in the NHAI and that the petitioners are not the owners thereof. The law is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not decide the title disputes (see Ram Badan Rai v. Union of India [1] and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samithi [2] ). Though the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that in the face of voluminous evidence produced by the petitioners, denial of petitioners’ title by respondent No.5 cannot be countenanced, I have not felt persuaded to accept this contention. A perusal of the material filed by the petitioners shows that they are wholly unauthenticated documents. None of the purported pahanies or the pattadar passbooks is either original or an authenticated document. It will be hazardous for this Court to pronounce upon the ownership of the petitioners on the basis of such documents. Unless the petitioners establish their title in an appropriate Court of law, on the strength of the documents of title, it is not possible for this Court to direct the respondents to pay compensation to them on the purported plea raised by them that they are the owners of the land. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property, with liberty to them to approach the appropriate Civil Court for declaration of their title. If the Civil Court grants a decree in their favour, they are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st September, 2008 [1] (1999) 1 SCC 705 [2] (2006) 9 SCC 524