MOHD ALI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in both the writ petitions have common interest and grievance against the respondents arising out of a dispute in relation to the same land. Hence these writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Land measuring Ac. 13.28 gts., situated in Sy. No. 428 of Patancheru village and Mandal Medak District is an Inam land classified as "Dasthagartha Inam Land". All inams in the Telangana Area of the State of A.P., were abolished under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act'). The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was an inamdar of the said land. Abbas Ali, Mohd. Ibrahim Ali, Mahaboob Ali and Faqueer Mohammad, sons of one Shaik Dade were registered as occupants. A final patta under Section 4 of the Act was issued in their favour vide proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings bearing No. B/750/75/542 - G/7150/75/542, dated 5.09.1977, thus conferring title on them. Appeal filed against the said order by some third parties was dismissed by orders of the District Collector, Medak dated 10.07.1984, thus confirming the ownership rights of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners. These petitioners are the successors of the said grantees.

(2.) At one point of time, the possession of the petitioners was sought to be distributed (sic, disturbed) by the State. Some of the petitioners filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 8 of 1986 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy, impleading the District Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Medak District, the 4th respondent herein as the defendant and sought for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 20.05.1988. An appeal bearing A.S. No. 1488 of 1988 was filed against the said judgment in this Court. This Court noticed the fact that the State nowhere claimed the ownership of the suit property and as a matter of fact ownership of the plaintiffs had been conceded, dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs were not in possession and that the plaintiffs desired to withdraw the suit along with the appeal to enable them to make a representation to the Government for payment of suitable compensation.

(3.) Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid appeal, the petitioners submitted representations on 27.01.2004 and 26.03.2004 seeking payment of compensation in so far as an extent of Ac. 2.18 gts., of land which remained in the possession of the 4th respondent, who has set up a school on a part of the said land. As the State Government was not inclined to pay compensation, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in illegally occupying the said land without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and payment of compensation, as illegal.