The petitioner is aggrieved due to resumption of his land by the State for the benefit of the 3rd respondent-A.P. Genco, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) and is seeking a direction to pay compensation by initiating the process of acquisition by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural wet land admeasuring Acs.4.52 cents situated in Sy.No.239/4A and 239/4B of Nelatur Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District. He purchased the land through an unregistered sale deed dated 18.8.1988 from one Nelaturu Ramaiah, whose name was recorded as pattadar. The unregistered sale was validated by the Revenue authorities and Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds were issued in his favour after duly levying stamp duty and registration charges under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity “the ROR Act”).

3. An extent of Acs.15.90 cents of land was notified for acquisition for the Development of Environmental Belt to a Power Station under the provisions of the Act. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 8.4.2008 and the draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8.10.2008. The land of the petitioner did not find place in the Notification, thus was outside the purview of the acquisition proceedings.

4. However, his land was also taken possession along with the notified lands and possession was handed over to respondent No.3. The petitioner, having lost the land, approached respondent No.2 through a representation dated 7.11.2009 with a request to pay compensation. The Tahsildar, Muthukur, was thereupon directed to enquire into the claim of the petitioner. He submitted a report confirming that the petitioner is the rightful owner and pattadar. Despite the same, compensation was not paid to him. Hence, he has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to initiate the procedure under the Act and pay compensation to him.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, opposing the claim of the petitioner, stating that the subject land is Government land and the petitioner was only an occupant. The counter further states that the name of the petitioner was entered as pattadar and enjoyer in the Revenue records for Fasli 1422 and also in ROR 1-B Register with khatha No.86. Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds were also issued in his favour. However, the land was classified as AW-Wet land in the register and the same is treated as Government land since dots (….) are put against the subject land in certain columns of the record. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Act and, as such, the compensation was not paid to him. The respondents, however, state that the petitioner is entitled for payment of ex-gratia on par with similar persons.

6. I have heard Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who advanced arguments on the aforesaid lines.

7. The core issues that arise for consideration are,

(i) Whether the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the subject land is Government land is correct; and

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per the provisions of the Act as a pattadar of the land.

8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was given Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds, identifying him as the pattadar under the ROR Act. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was mutated in Revenue Records for Fasli 1422 and also in ROR 1-B Register with khatha No.86.

9. In the light of the above facts, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 relevant for the purpose of the case.

10. The Act has been enacted to provide that