RADHE SHYAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner states that he is the grand son of one of the legal heirs of late Devi Singh S/o. Dhan Singh. According to him, an extent of 3000 sq. yards of land in T.S.No.5, Block 'A', Ward 201, Thotaguda Revenue Village, of present Nampally Mandal was owned by Devi Singh, that several families of weaker sections were living therein, and that they are paying meagre rents, till the year 1985. It is stated that the name of Devi Singh was reflected in the revenue/town survey records, in respect of the said land. The petitioner states that after the death of Devi Singh, his father, Sunder Singh, succeeded to the property, and on the death of his father, he succeeded to it.

(2.) IT is stated that the tenants over the land stopped payment of rents from 1985 onwards on the basis of pattas granted to them by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, the 2nd respondent herein, in that year. A notice requiring the respondents to pay compensation is said to have been issued immediately, and that in the recent past, extensive correspondence was undertaken in relation to the land. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent feigned ignorance as to the basis for issuance of patta certificates, and at one stage, stated that the pattas were issued on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the Urban Development Wing of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is alleged that when the petitioner approached the Corporation, he was informed that though the proceedings were initiated at one stage, under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), they did not assume finality, and that the Corporation have no role to play in the grant of pattas over the land. With these and other related contentions, the petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in distributing patta certificates over the land, referred to above, to the weaker sections, without payment of compensation to him as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the prevailing market value.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, on the other hand, submit that the writ petition is barred by laches. They contend that there is nothing to indicate that the land belongs to the petitioner or his ancestors. It is also submitted by them that the land belongs to the Government and the persons, who residing thereon since a long time, were issued pattas.