ORDER:-

Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner in respect of the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.258/2 of Mopurupalli Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the Provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.258/2 of Mopurupalli Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District and pass…”

3. It is stated that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of the Ac.1.60 cents situated in Sy.No.258/2 of Mopurupalli Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. It is contended that in recognition of his title and possession of the land, the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and possession certificate, dated 24.09.2009, was also issued. It is contended that the said land was taken over by the respondents in the year 2016 for public purpose of establishment of SEZ. It is further stated that the respondents have assured that due compensation would be paid to the petitioners. Believing the respondents, the petitioner has delivered the possession of the lands. It is stated that the land was taken in the year 2016, yet the respondents have not paid the compensation. Hence he was constrained to approach this Court.

4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the APIIC has acquired the land, including the writ schedule land to set up a Special Economic Zone. The petitioner does not have title over the subject land. It is stated that the Government of A.P. has issued orders of alienation in favour of APIIC vide G.O.Ms.No.237, dt. 21.02.2009 and out of total extent of Ac.4.27 cents of land in Sy. No.258, the writ schedule land of Ac.2.27 cents was handed over to APIIC by the Tahsildar on 08.04.2011. Further, the respondents stated that the pattadar passbooks relied upon by the petitioner does not contain any Khata number and that the same is bogus. And that the name of the petitioner is not incorporated in any of the revenue records. It is stated that the enjoyment certificate is dated 24.09.2009, whereas the scheduled land was alienated to APIIC on 21.02.2009. It is thus contended that the petitioner managed to obtain the enjoyment certificate after the alienation, and as such, the same has no validity under the law and is bogus. It is further contended that as per the fair adangal of Mopurupalli Village, an extent of Ac.4.27 cents in Sy. No.258 was classified as Government Dry, and in the relevant column relating to the name of the pattadar, “dots” were incorporated. He further stated that on verification of DKT Register for Fasil No.1378, with respect to the subject land, the name of one Kusumakumari, W/o. Siva Raju was mentioned vide DKT No.1347/4/1378 as D-Form patta holder, and the patta of the said Kusumakumari was subsequently cancelled vide proceedings in Roc.No.B 242, dt. 15.05.1995.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G.R.Sudhakar contends that mere entry of “dots” in the revenue record would not mean that the subject land vests with the government. In support of his contention, he relies on a decision of this Court in the case of G. Satyanarayana Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in 2014 (4) ALD 358. He thus contends that there is no rival claimant seeking compensation in respect of the subject land.

6. Considered the rival submissions.

7. The petitioner in support of his contention that he is the owner and possessor of the subject land re