A DWARAKANATH REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of Acs. 3.51 cents of land in survey No. 156/3 of Kogileru Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. It is stated that over an extent of Ac.0.26 cents of land, some of the villagers, particularly from Basavaraju Kandriga Village have constructed huts. Complaining that the authorities of the Revenue Department are proposing to dispossess him from the rest of the land, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 467 of 1993 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur. He has also filed I.A. No. 1514 of 1993 for temporary injunction. The respondents are said to have filed a counter in the I.A. stating that Ac.0.26 cents of land of the petitioner is already under the occupation of landless poor and that they do not intend to take possession of any further extent and that I.A. was ordered on 15.07.1994. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents made a proposal to the effect that the petitioner should vacate the land in survey No. 175/2B and that he should not raise any objection for Ac.0.26 cents of land in survey No. 156/3 and that in such an event, they do not proceed against the remaining extent of land in survey No. 156/3. The petitioner states that he agreed for those conditions and that an award to that effect was passed in the Lok Adalat on 15.06.2002. This writ petition is filed alleging that contrary to the stand taken by them way back in the year 1993 in I.A. No. 1514 of 1993, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") in respect of Ac.0.80 cents of land in survey No. 156/3 by publishing a notification under Section 4(1) on 07.03.1996 and a declaration under Section 6 simultaneously. On further verification, the petitioner is said to have come to know that an award was also passed on 03.03.1997. The petitioner submits that various steps taken by the respondents are contrary to the representation made by them in O.S. No. 467 of 1993 and that the procedure prescribed by law was also not followed.

(2.) Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the extent of Ac.0.80 cents of land, which is acquired from the petitioner is different from the property mentioned in the consent decree/award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is also stated that possession of the notified land was taken and that an award was also passed.

(3.) The writ petition was dismissed on reporting no instructions on 04.06.2007. Thereafter, the writ petition was restored to file on 25.03.2011.