WP/28236/2011 of Jetti Narasimha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011

Conclusion

COMMON ORDER:

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up forhearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for theparties.

This batch of writ petitions are filed by certain individuals, whoclaim to be the tenants of respondent No.7-Devasthanam, for amandamus to declare the action of the respondents in notimplementing G.O.Ms.No.237, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, dated28.03.1990, by apportioning the compensation between them andrespondent No.7 in the ratio of 2:1 in respect of the land acquired bythe Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, respondent No.3,as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a direction notto dispossess them without paying compensation to them.

The petitioners claim that they are the tenants of respondent No.7 in respect of the lands, which are acquired for the purpose ofrespondent No.3. Their grievance is that even though G.O.Ms.No.237,dated 28.03.1990, was issued by the State Government fixing the ratioof 1:2 between the Devasthanam and the tenants in respect of the landadmeasuring Acs.144.75 cents in Vepagunta Village acquired byrespondent No.3, no compensation is paid to them and that they aresought to be evicted.

Respondent No.7 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it hasclaimed that the entire extent of Acs.144.75 cents of land is owned bythe Devasthanam, that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), afterholding enquiry under Section 3(3) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’),declared that the lands covered by T.D.No.3145 are inam landssituated in an inam village held by the institution vide his order, dated28.11.1977, that it was clearly mentioned in the said order that 200cultivating tenants were present at the time of hearing and they haveconceded that the lands were inam lands in an inam village and heldby the Devasthanam and that none of the cultivating tenants werepresent at the subsequent hearing. It is further stated thatsubsequently the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted survey of theland for issue of ryotwari pattas and by order, dated 16.01.1997, inA.I.A.No.52/77, he has issued ryothwari pattas relating to Acs.378.10cents of land in various survey numbers in favour of respondent No.7and that these orders have become final. It is also stated that the LandAcquisition Officer passed awards for a sum of Rs.32,47,057.75 ps ascompensation and since there were rival claims, the amount ofcompensation was deposited in the civil Court for determination of theclaims under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondent No.7 has thus denied the right of the petitioners to receivecompensation.

From the averments of the counter-affidavit, it appears that afterissuance of the said G.O., in the year 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued ryothwari pattas in favour of respondent No.7 underSection 7(1) of the Act on 16.01.1997 in respect of Acs.378.10 cents ofland.

Ratio decidendi

At the hearing, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, learned counsel for thepetitioners, submitted that the ryotwari pattas granted in favour ofrespondent No.7 are only in respect of part of the land and that thelands held by his clients are not covered by the said pattas.As far as the first part of the relief claimed by the petitioners isconcerned, by G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.03.1990, the StateGovernment has fixed the ratio of 1:2 between respondent No.7-Devasthanam and its tenants. The G.O., however, has taken note ofthe fact that there is a tenure dispute with respect to the lands claimedby the occupants claiming their right as tenants and no such disputepersisted between the Devasthanam and the Government andtherefore, there can be no reason for withholding 1/3[rd] of the amountpayable to respondent No.7-Devasthanam as per the ratio of 1:2 fixedin the G.O. Unless and until the petitioners’ rights as tenants ofrespondent No.7 are declared, they cannot claim compensation interms of the ratio fixed under G.O.Ms.No.237. The learned counsel forthe petitioners has not disputed that so far the dispute as to the tenureof his clients as tenants has not been determined by the competentauthority and that their claims are still pending. It is also not in disputethat in view of the competing claims, the dispute was referred to thecompetent civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894. As such, the petitioners are entitled toparticipate in the said proceedings and assert their right to receive theirshare of compensation. Therefore, no mandamus as claimed by thepetitioners can be issued.

With regard to the second part of the relief, once the land isacquired, respondent No.3 is entitled to take possession. Theacquisition proceedings are not under challenge. It is not the case ofthe petitioners that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been paid by respondent No.3. The deposit made by ittowards compensation is kept in the civil Court deposit by the LandAcquisition Officer while referring the dispute under Section 30 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners could not receive thecompensation amount only for the reason that their status as tenants ofrespondent No.7 has not been declared by the competent authority. Inthe light of these facts, the petitioners cannot be allowed to say thatthey cannot be dispossessed till they receive compensation. As ofnow, the right of the petitioners as tenants is not declared and even iftheir status is declared as such, at best they are entitled tocompensation at the ratio fixed in G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.03.1990. In view of the same, no mandamus not to dispossess the petitionerscan be issued.

For all the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions fail andthe same are accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, the interim orders,if any granted, shall stand vacated and the interlocutory applications, ifany pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J29[th] December, 2011VGB