IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the failure to allot equivalent land or provide compensation for lost property violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“…the issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in not considering the representations dated 27.12.2008, 6.6.2009, 25.06.2009, 19.8.2011, 9.1.2014 and 18.2.2015 and in identifying and allotting short fall of land parcel in Sy.No.275 of Khammam, Khammam District, to the petitioner in lieu of the land lost by them in Sy.No.123, Zaheerpura, Khammam City, is bad, illegal, unauthorized, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and as such non est in law ...”

2. Heard Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Khammam Municipality has made layout of plots in Sy.No.123 and sold the said plots in public auction to various persons on payment of costs. In the said auction, Gokul Chand Mishra, Nomula Viswanadham, Rayapudi Ramulu, Kadavendi Chakrapani and Poonam Chand have purchased plot Nos.1 to 5 respectively to an extent of each 833.33 sq. yards and Arvapally Venkateswara Rao has purchased plot No.6 to an extent of 808.11 sq. yards and paid the amounts. Pursuant to the same, Khammam Municipality had issued sale certificates to the above said persons. Subsequently, Sri Gokul Chand Mishra died and after his death Smt. Radhabai Mishra succeeded the said property. Smt. Radhabai Mishra executed a Will deed vide document bearing No.25 of 1993 dated 19.03.1993 in favour of petitioner No.1 herein; Sri Nomula Viswanadham and his son Nomula Purushotham Rao expired and Nomula Parvathi, W/o.Nomula Purushotham Rao, who is petitioner No.2 herein, succeeded the property of Nomula Viswanadham; Rayapudi Ramulu sold the plot to Sri Venkatsarvaiah, who also died, and his son Venkateswara Rao-petitioner No.3 herein succeeded the property; Kadavendi Chakrapani, who is the original purchaser, and his eldest son Kadavendi Rajeswara Rao passed away and the son of Kadavendi Rajeswara Rao namely, Kadavendi Badri Prasad-petitioner No.4 herein succeeded the property; Sri Poonam Chand, original purchaser, died and in the family arrangement, the property went to his brother’s son namely Shyam Prasad Tiwari-petitioner No.5 as per O.S.No.122 of 1979.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that though Khammam Municipality has sold the land in public auction, the petitioners and their predecessors have found that the said land was in occupation of trespassers belonging to scheduled tribe community (Lambada). Since the predecessors of the petitioners were not able to enjoy the said land having purchased the same through public auction by paying amounts, they have filed various suits against the trespassers which were decreed in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners. The suit in O.S.No.122 of 1979 was decreed and thereafter the predecessors have filed E.P.No.52 of 1983 and the same was allowed. The execution Court issued warrants in the said E.P. for delivery of property in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners. He further submits that at that juncture, the then Chief Minister visited Khammam Town in the month of October 2002. The encroachers/occupiers of the subject land requested the Chief Minister to protect them from being evicted from the subject land. Basing on their request, the Chief Minister has assured that their possession would be protected and directed the concerned officials to negotiate with the land owners and construct a colony under VAMBAY Scheme for scheduled tribe community and also the owners of the land were to be allotted separate land equal in size and value to that of the land they are losing. Pursuant to the said instructions, the revenue authorities had identified the land in Sy.No.275 at Khanapuram Haveli and plots were given to the predecessors of the petitioners. Accordingly, a Deed of Exchange was executed by the Government i