The High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The Agent to Government, Khammam, Khammam District. The Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. The Spl. Deputy Collector (T.W.), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its, Secretary I and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Dy. Collector (LA), l.P.T. and Rlys, Khammam.

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penuballi Post, Khammam District. 6. 7. Nagubandi Srinivasarao, S/o.Vykuntam, ReSident of Penuballi Post, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring- a) The order in CMA No.38 of 2007 dated 28.6.200a passed by the Addl. Agent to Govt, Bhadrachalam confirming the orders of the Spl. Dy. Collector (T.W.) Bhadrachalam in LTR Case No.332/05 dated 26.9.2005 as illegal, without jurisdiction, and abuse of power to defraud the petitioner from receiving the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, '1894. b) To direct the - Agent to Goverrrment-cum-District Collector, Khammam and the Land Acquisition Officer and Spl Dy. Collector (L.A) l.P.T. and Rlys, Khammam to pay to the petitioner the compensation fixed under the award No.5/2006-07 dated 7.1O.2006 passed by the L.A.O. and Spl. Dy. Collector (L.A) l.P.T. and RLYS, Khammam in respect of Sy.No.527 Extent of Ac.1 1 -1 1 gts situated in Gowraram Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam district and also to direct the payment of interest at the rate of 15o/o p$ annum cn the compensation fixed under the said award till the payment of compensation. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. R. KALYAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR lIIRIT PETITION No.4634 of 2OO9 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking following prayer: "...declaring a) the order in CMA-,1Vo.38 of 2007 dated 28.06.2008 passed bA the Addl. Agent to Gout', Bhadrachalam confirming the orders of the Spl.Dg.Collector, TW Bhadrachalam in LTR Case No.332/ 05 dated 26.09.2005 as illegal uithout jurisdiction and" abuse of power to defraud the petitioner from receiuing the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 b) To direct the Agent to Go u e rnment' cum- Dis trict C olle cto r, Khammam and the Land Acquisition OJficer and Spl-Dg.Collector, (LA)IPT and Rlys, Khammam to paA to the petitioner the compensqtion -fi*ed under the qward No.S/ 2006-07 d"oted 07.10.2006 passed bg the LAO and Spl.Dy.Collector (LA)IPT and RtyS, Khammam in respect of 5g.No.527, extent of Ac.11-11 gts., situqted in Gowraram Village, Penuballi Manda.l, Khammam district and. q.lso to direct the payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the compensation fixtd under the soid award. till the paAment of compensation..."

2. Tod,ay, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land. Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6. 2

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner claims to be absolute owner of land in Sy.Nos.527 to an extent of Ac. 1 2-lO gts., in Gowraram Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammanr District, which is an ancestral property of petitioner's husband. It is submitted that construction of Rathoni tank has taken up in the year 1959 and the work was completed in the year 1962 and that petitioner's land was sub-merged in the said tank watt:rs. The petitioner had made representations to respondenl authorities for payment of compensation. However, when the compensation was not paid, petitioner filed W.P.No.16()06 of 1988 before this Court and this Court passed orders on 04.07.1996 directing RDO, Khammam to conduct enquiry about the submergence of the lands and if it is found that lands were submerged, directed to initiate the proceedings under the: Land Acquisition Act. When the respondent authorities did not implement the order of this Court, petitioner filed Contempt Case in C.C.No.1515 of L997. The Government has filed SLP.No.149/2OO4 before the Honble Supreme Court and the sarne was dismissed confirming the orders of this Court, thereafter, t-he review filed by the Government also got dismissed on 26.04.2005. Thereafter, Government has not taken any steps tb implement the orders of this Court. Thereupon the notification U/s.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette No.2312005 dated 18.06.2005 and the C.C. was closed on 27.06.2005 directing to pay the compensation within three months. The Government issued Memo.No .4172 /Minor Irrigation-dated 10.06.2005 directing the District Collector, Khammam to instruct the Special Deputy Collector, 3rd respondent herein to initiate cases under LTR and to finalize the cases before the award enquiry. [n view of the direction given by the Government, the declaration was made by the L.A.O. after lapse of ten months and thereafter the orders were passed by the Special Deputy Collector

4. It is submitted that the District Collector, Khammam wrote a letter in Rc.No.G/3039/2OO4 dated 30.6.2005 to the Special Deputy Collector to initiate the cases under L.T.R. Regulation llTO and to finalize the cases before award enquiry for exclusion in payment of compensation, and enclosed the draft notification in Form 2A. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent after receipt of the letter from the District Collector built up the case No.332/05/PNB and the order was passed on

26.09.20O5. Aggrieved by the said orders, an appeal was liled in 4 I\i CMA.No.3;5l2006 before the Agent to Government i.e., the first respondent herein.

5. It is submitted that respondent No.l transferred the appeal to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had taken up the appeal and numbered as CIVIA.No.3B I2OOT and passed orders on i18.6.2OO8 confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 passed orders ignoring the fact that the lands were submerged in the Rathoni tank about 45 years back, observing that the case was initiated on the basis of the pahanies ;rnd that respondent No.7 stated that they have purchased the Lands under sada sale deed of 1967. Aggrieved by the said or<lers, the present writ petition is filed.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 i.e., Addl. Agent to Government, Badrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudern District. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land A<:quisition would submit that LTR case was initiated against the petitioner by 3ra respondent on the report of Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW), Bhadrachalam dt.25.07.2005 and after due enquir.r and hearing the case, the 3'd respondent passed orders on 26.09.2005 holding that the transaction of the schedule land of an extent of Ac.12.1Ogts in Sy.No .527 situated /" ,r 5 at Gowraram village of Penuballi Mandal of Khammam District between the petitioner and 7th respondent herein is against the provisions of A.P (S.A) LTR 1/59 as amended by the regulation I l70 and accordingly directed the Tahsildar, Penuballi Mandal to take over the land into Govt., custody and assignment to the landless Tribals. As per the trial Court case record, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Penuballi had taken over possession of the schedule A land, on 30.12.2OO5 under cover of panchanama. The petitioner was called absent and the case was finally called on 26.09.2005. It is further submitted that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove his contention by producing the documented evidence to prove his claim made under appeal, but he failed to do so. The petitioner also failed to attend before the

3.d respondent, the date on which the case was finally called on

26.09.2005. It is further submitted that a clear violation has taken place with respect to the transfer of the immovable property/scheduled land against the L.T.Regulation by enjoyment of the petitioner's land by another non-Tribal respondent (7th respondent herein) as per the recorded evidence of the village pahani for the year 2OO4-O5. Hence, the 2nd respondent passed orders basing on the material record available. ThE- appellant (petitioner herein) totally failed to prove i I I I 6 his claim made under appeal. In the above said circumstances, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition prayed thjs Court to dismiss the present writ petition on the following grounds: (i) T'hat claimant/petitioner has failed to prove the documenttrry evidence in support of his title and possession over the schedu.led land. (ii) TJrat the petitioner has no valid title of document, no lawful poss;ession over the land. Moreover the petitioner occupied the land in the agency area against the regulation. The burden of proof lies upon the petitioner lclaimant to prove his title and possession over the land. (iii) 'l'hat in terms of the Spl.Dy.Collector (TW) order dated:26.01).2005 and against that orders the CMAs would indicate that it is a clear case of violation of rules under l/7O regulation. (iv) That the Regulation I l7O section (3) clearly indicates I transfer of immovable property situated in the agency areas in favour of arLy non-ST person is absolutely invalid. (v) That the petitioner did not challenge the CMA orders before the Government under section (6) of the regulation. / 7 lnstead of filing a Revision Petition, had directly approached the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad.

7. When the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that they would adopt the counter,affidavit of respondent No.2

8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by respondent No.2 confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3 dated

26.O9.2005 warrants no interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits, fails and accordingly stands dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs- //TRUE COPYII SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6SECTION OFFICER To, t\ \ \M,

1. One CC to Sri R. R. Kalyan, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to the GP for lnigation and Command Area Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadtOuTl

3. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI

4. Two CCs to the GP for Land Acquisition, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

5. Two CD Copies HIGH COI.'RT T=i i2910712025 I I t 3 r=li WP.No.4634 ot 2009 r 3 (J ( * HES 1 1 0 Fr8 2026 * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS # \81