AKKENAPALLI SUMANDER REDDY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of land in various survey numbers of Ramsagar and Kistampet Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District. It is stated that on a representation made by the residents of the surrounding villages, the Government has initiated steps for restoration of a tank known as 'Polai Cheruvu' as a Percolation Tank under a special programme. Survey is said to have been conducted to identify the land that would be effected, in the event of the tank being brought into existence. The petitioners contend that without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the respondents have brought into existence a tank and that their lands got sub-merged in it. On an earlier occasion, they filed W.P. No. 23974 of 2002, pleading that the action of the respondents in rendering their lands to be sub-merged without initiating the proceedings under the Act, is arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition was disposed of on 28.02.2006, directing the District Collector, Warangal, the 2nd respondent herein, to consider the representation that may be submitted by the petitioners. On a consideration of such representation, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 17.05.2006, stating that there existed a tank about 500 years ago at the concerned place, and that the steps taken by the Government are only in the nature of restoration of the tank. He observed that though the records show that the petitioners are the pattadars of the land, the fact that it was the tank bed of 'Polai Cheruvu', cannot be ignored. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No. 17959 of 2006. This Court did not endorse the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. It was also observed that the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- paid on earlier occasion is inadequate. The 2nd respondent was directed to re-consider the entire issue. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 26.08.2009.

(2.) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 23.12.2009, rejecting the case of the petitioners and observing that the compensation that was paid earlier is adequate. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners contend that the revenue records clearly demonstrate that the lands are held in patta by them and there is not even a trace of right of the Government, over the lands.