When a dispute arises regarding the exact boundaries of acquired land and allegations of encroachment exist, a joint survey by revenue authorities is the appropriate mechanism to demarcate land and resolve the factual conflict.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in interfering with the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.35/5 to an extent of Ac.2.02 gts situated at Theegalapahad Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, without acquiring and without paying compensation to their land and without due process of law is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper”

2. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited (respondent – Company) for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Case of the petitioners is that they are the pattedars and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.1.01 gunta each in Survey No.35/5 situated at Theegalapahad Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. Tahsildar - respondent No.6 assigned land to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas to father of petitioners in the year 1984. Father of petitioners died on 08.10.1991. After the death of their father, revenue records were mutated in the names of petitioners in respect of land in Survey No.35/5 to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of this Court to pattadar passbook (Ex.P1 at page No.10), proceedings, dated 16.12.1993, of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) (Ex.P3 at page No.20) and notice, dated 19.12.1994, (Ex.P4 at page No.22) issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’).

5. It is further submitted that respondent Company acquired huge tracts of land. Learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of this Court to Form 7 (Ex.P4 at page No.22) showing the extents of lands acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) in various villages. It is submitted that land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas belonging to petitioners was acquired by award proceedings dated 08.08.1995 bearing No.A/1047/92 and compensation was paid. It is pointed out that though respondent company acquired land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas, it is alleged that the respondent company is interfering with the possession of petitioners in the remaining extent of their land i.e., Acs.2.02 guntas.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent company submitted that land to an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas pertaining to petitioners was acquired and the same is evident from the acquisition proceedings. That compensation as determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and LAO, Mancherial, was already paid to the petitioners and their mother equally. That respondents are no way concerned with the remaining extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.02 guntas in Survey No.35/5. It is further submitted that the allegation that respondents are interfering with the property of petitioners to dispossess them from their land to an extent of Acs.2.02 guntas situated at Theegalapahad Village is untenable and is a false allegation.

7. Learned Standing Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph Nos.7 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by General Manager of the respondent company and submitted that in Survey No.35 of Theegalapahad Village, land to an extent of Acs.6.02 guntas was acqu