SHAIK MOHAMMAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac. 4-95 cents in Sy. No. 813/1 of Koduru village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District, for the purpose of establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person and that he was assigned the above mentioned land vide D.A.R. Dis. No. 9/1404, dated 29-10-1994 by respondent No. 5. The petitioner was serving the Army at that point of time and the land assigned to him was kept in the care and custody of his family members. It is also the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has received compensation on five occasions through cheques from the Andhra Grameena Bank, Kodikondla, towards crop damages. When the petitioner's request for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed was not considered, he has filed W.P. No. 13855/2013 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30-4-2013 by permitting him to make a representation with the further direction to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider and take a decision thereon. On the petitioner making such representation, respondent No. 5 served an endorsement on 20-6-2013 wherein it is stated that the subject land was recorded as "Government land" in the village accounts and therefore the same was alienated to the Zonal Manager, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIIC), Anantapur, for establishment of an Industrial Park and that the said land was subsequently registered in favour of M/s. Mediplex Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. Feeling aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5 on behalf of himself and respondent Nos. 1 to 4, wherein it is inter alia stated that the land in question was originally classified as A.W. as per the Diglot of Kodur village; that the same was included among other lands in the list of Government lands as requisitioned by the Zonal Manager, APIIC for establishment of an Industrial Park at Chilamathur; and that only after verification of the village accounts available in the office and after inspection of the land in Sy. No. 813/1 by respondent No. 5 the land was alienated in favour of the APIIC. It is further stated that after personal inspection and verification of the village account, A-1 notice was published in respect of the land in question on 20-8-2008 inviting objections for alienation and that no objections were received. Respondent No. 5 reiterated that the name of the petitioner was not entered anywhere in the revenue record; that the land was already sold to the APIIC in the year 2008 and that in the year 2011, the same was sold to M/s. Mediplex Pvt. Ltd., by the authorised person of the Lepakshi Knowledge Hub. Respondent No. 5 has however admitted that on the application of the petitioner, the records were verified and he was supplied with a certified copy of D-Form patta along with other documents.

(3.) The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties discussed above would show that the petitioner was granted a DKT patta in respect of the land in question as far back as 29-10-1994. As the petitioner was in the Army at that time, evidently he has not cultivated the land. The petitioner has also not taken care to see that his name is entered in the revenue record such as Adangal in respect thereof. Nearly two decades after the issuance of the DKT patta, the petitioner approached the respondents with a request to issue pattadar passbook and title deed. It is at this stage that it came to light that the land assigned to the petitioner was alienated for establishment of a SEZ. In the face of these admitted facts, the respondents cannot be entirely blamed for alienating the land assigned to the petitioner, as the failure of respondent No. 5 in noticing the grant of the DKT patta in favour of the petitioner is obviously a bonafide mistake. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner still holds the DKT patta and the same has not been cancelled.