@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Sri Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.@mdashThe writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that he is entitled for payment of compensation as specified in G.O. Ms. No. 177 Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990 for the lands of an extent of Ac.23.22 cents situate in Sy Nos. 14, 15/1, 15/3, 16/1 and 12/4 in Rowrintada village and an extent of Ac. 8.55 cents in Sy No. 35 and 17/2 in Pentapadu village, hamlet of Antarla in Chintapally Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District, acquired under the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 177 Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, a native of Chintapally village lying in a scheduled area of Visakhapatnam District claimed to be the owner of a total extent of Ac. 31.77 cents of agricultural land situate in Sy Nos. 14, 15/1, 15/3, 16/1 and 12/4 in Rowrithanda village and Sy Nos. 35 and 17/2 in Pentapadu village, Hamlet of Antarla in Chintapally Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. These lands were originally situated in Lammasingi Mutta and Pedavalala Mutta. The respective Muttadars granted permanent leases over these lands in favour of the petitioner in the years 1952 and 1954 subject to the condition that the land should be brought under cultivation within a period of three years and accordingly the petitioner had re-claimed the land and made them fit for cultivation. It is also asserted that he is in continuous possession of the lands and was cultivating the same by raising crops every year. After A.P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation 2 of 1969 came into force, the Settlement Officer, Anakapally, in a suo motu enquiry declared that the petitioner is entitled to be granted ryotwari pattas and accordingly granted pattas in his favour on 17.4.1980 and 31.7.1980. It was also asserted by the petitioner that in the Village Settlement Register, his name has been entered as the owner of the said lands and that he was paying cist regularly for the said lands to the government. The State Government has taken a policy decision and announced the same through their G.O. Ms. No. 177 Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990 to implement Socio Economic Development plan for the betterment of the tribals by spending Rs. 65 Crores. It has been decided by the State Government as a policy to acquire the lands situated in scheduled/tribal areas possessed by non-tribal individuals and assign the same at the rate of two acres for each poor scheduled tribe families. For achieving this purpose of acquisition, a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs has been sanctioned to be spent immediately by the Director of Tribal Welfare for payment of compensation for acquisition of lands. Of the Rs. 80.00 lakhs thus sanctioned, Rs. 20 lakhs have been allocated to the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Chintapally, Visakhapatnam District. Since the conditions stipulated in the aforesaid policy decision for acquisition of the lands in pursuance thereof are satisfied, the petitioner along with Mrs. C.B. Pearl, widow of Sri C.T. Pearl offered their lands situated at Chintapally Revenue Mandal for acquisition as per the policy decision contained in G.O. Ms. No. 177 Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990. The petitioner has also followed it up by an individual representation dated 7.3.1991. On 2.4.1991, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapally called upon the petitioner to produce the necessary record available with him in proof of title of his lands. Accordingly, the petitioner produced the documentary evidence available with him in support of his claim on 11.4.1981. The Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, has recommended acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioner as well as Mrs. C.B. Pearl. However, on 10.2.1992, the Sub-Collector, Paderu, conducted an inspection of the lands of the petitioner and the petitioner attended at that inspection. By notice dated 17.3.1992, the Sub-Collector directed the petitioner to produce the documents in support of his claim which he did. But, surprisingly, the Sub-Collector, Paderu, issued proceedings on 16.9.1992, deciding to acquire the lands of Mrs. C.B. Pearl at the rate of Rs. 4750/- per acre and sanctioned a sum of Rs. 86,107.50 ps to be paid to Mrs. C.B. Pearl for acquisition of the lands belonging to her. But, however, no such proceedings have been issued in respect of lands belonging to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner issued a telegram on 12.11.1992 followed up by a representation on the same day to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, who also functions as the Chairman of the ITDA. Though the District Collector had called for the necessary records, no orders have been passed for acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that his case stands on the same footing as that of Mrs. C.B. Pearl, but yet his lands have not been acquired and no compensation has been paid to him. While, at the same time, the lands belonging to Mrs. C.B. Pearl were acquired. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu. It is not disputed that the petitioner has offered land of his for acquisition in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 177 Social Welfare (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990 and that the Sub-Collector, Paderu, inspected the above lands along with Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapally Mandal, on 20.2.1992 and submitted a detailed report suggesting not to purchase the lands offered by the petitioner, for, there is a genuine doubt about the valid title to the land and also because of plenty of government land is available for assigning to the poor tribal families. Thereafter, the Governing Body of the ITDA met on 4.5.1993 and resolved not to acquire the lands of the writ petitioner herein. It is also contended that land of an extent of Ac.8.55 cts lying in Sy. Nos. 35 and 17/2 of Pentapadu village, hamlet of Antharla village and Chintapally Mandal was claimed by the petitioner as owned by him. But, however, it is not very clear as to whether over this very extent of land or at least to a certain extent, a patta was already granted in favour of Sri Gaduthuri Linganna Padal, S/o Pandu Padal, a Scheduled Tribe candidate and patta was granted in his favour by the Settlement Officer, Muthadari Abolition, Peddapuram in Case No. 2178/1974 u/s 8 read with Rule 17 of the A.P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, (A.P. Regulation 2 of 1969). It is contended that the lands over which the petitioner has claimed ownership are also forming part of a single patta bearing No. 8 of Antharla village which was forming part of Peddavalasa Mutta earlier. When survey was undertaken, Sri Gaduthuri Linganna Pandal was found to be in possession of those lands and hence the Tahsildar, Chintapalli Mandal has issued him a certificate of possession of the lands on 24.10.1971, as a preliminary measure before issuing ryotwari settlement patta conferring title on him. Sri Linganna Padal was also subsequently granted a ryotwari settlement patta. At no stage of these proceedings, the writ petitioner either objected to the title or possession of the lands by Sri Linganna Pandal or participated in enquiry relating to conferring title on Linganna Padal. Further, the patta granted to the writ petitioner through proceedings No. 2148/1975 dated 13.5.1975 does not bear signature of the Settlement Officer, Narsipatnam, the Competent Authority. However, it was merely initialed by the Special Deputy Tahsildar who only assists the Settlement Officer. The counter affidavit has also detailed as to how the genuineness of the patta granted in favour of the writ petitioner subsequently came to be doubted. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the lands situate in Sy Nos. 14, 15/1, 15/3, 16/1, 16/2 and 12/4 of Rowrinthada village of Chintapalli Mandal were classified in the Settlement Fair Adangal as Assessed Waste Lands (AWS) (i.e., Banjar) and accordingly changes were incorporated in the accounts and land records as per the proceedings Roc. No. 270/84/B, dated 23.10.1984 of the Tahsildar, Chintapalli. However, this particular file is reported to be missing and is untraceable in Taluq office, Chintapalli. If the land is assessed once as waste land, the question of possession or enjoyment of such banjar land by the petitioner herein would not arise. It was further set out that that a detailed report has been submitted by the Sub-Collector, Paderu, on 20.8.1992 and thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted another report on 13.7.1993 which was followed up by another report by the Sub-Collector, Paderu, on 1.10.1993 airing certain serious objections for acquisition of the lands belonging to the writ petitioner herein. Hence, it was decided not to acquire the lands of the petitioner as it was apprehended that acquisition might land in litigation frustrating the very objective for which such land is intended to be acquired. Therefore, it is contended that the question of payment of compensation to the petitioner for lands which have not been acquired would not arise.
2. The writ petitioner filed a detailed reply affidavit in the matter. It is asserted that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli after inspection of his lands in May, 1991, submitted a favourable report for acquisition of his lands and therefore casting any doubt on the title after so many years should not arise. It is suggested in the reply affidavit that the reason assigned by the sub-collector that there is plenty of government land available for distribution amongst various tribal families is purely invented for the purpose of denying the benefit of acquisition to the petitioner. If plenty of land is really available, then lands offered by Mrs. C.B. Pearl could not have been acquired by the ITDA and she could not have been paid compensation also. Insofar as the patta proceedings of Sri Linganna andal is concerned, it is asserted that the petitioner is never put on notice and consequently the patta proceedings carried out in favour of Sri Linganna Padal are all behind his back. It is asserted that Linganna Padal or any other family member of his has ever cultivated the lands of the petitioner and they were never in possession of such lands. The whole exercise carried out to grant a patta in favour of Sri Linganna Pandal was shrouded in mystery. It is claimed that the respondents have encouraged the tribals to encroach upon the lands of the petitioner, under a false promise that those very lands would be assigned to them in due course of time. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the lands thus acquired.
3. Heard Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents.
4. Learned Government Pleader has also made available for my study the file bearing R.Dis No. 570/1991 of the Sub-Collector Office, Paderu.
5. The State Government has contemplated an action plan for accelerated development of tribal areas. As part of this development plan, agricultural lands belonging to non-tribals situate in tribal areas are proposed to be acquired so that each landless tribal family can be assigned Ac.2.00 of land so as to enable them eek out an honourable living. In response to this scheme, the writ petitioner and one Smt. C.B. Pearl, a settlement patta holder of Madigunta village in Chintapalli Revenue Mandal have submitted the necessary proposals through their representation dated 5.3.1991. While Smt. C.B. Pearl offered Ac.8.10 cts of land situate in Sy. No. 1//2 of Madigunta village, the petitioner offered land of Ac.9.34 cts situate in Sy Nos. 14, 15/1, 15/3, 16/1, 16/2 and 12/4, land of an extent of Ac.2.82 cts in Sy No. 35 and a further extent of 0.60 cts situate in Sy No. 17/2 of Antharla village and Rowrinthda villages respectively. The Mandal Revenue Officer in his report suggested the lands to be acquired at a rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre as the rate suggested by the petitioner and Mrs. C.B. Pearl viz., Rs. 10,000/- per acre appears to be on high side. A detailed office note has been put up for consideration on 28.8.1991. The lands offered by Mrs. C.B. Pearl are found to be having clean title and without any shadow of doubt. Insofar as the lands offered by the petitioner are concerned, the note suggested that the petitioner never cultivated the said lands and he has given possession of the lands to certain ryots under ''crop sharing'' pattern. In view of the contents of this note, it was initially agreed on 11.9.1991 to acquire the lands offered by Mrs. C.B. Pearl and then consider the issue relating to the lands of the petitioner later on. Thereafter, the matter has been examined in detail and it was decided not to acquire the lands of the petitioner. At page 45 of this file, the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Chintapalli on 10.5.1991 to the Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu, is available. It was suggested by the Mandal Revenue Officer to acquire the lands of the petitioner also. The report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Paderu on 1.10.1991 to the Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu dealt with the lands offered by Smt. C.B. Pearl. When it came to the lands held by Sri P.V. Ramana Murthy (the writ petitioner), the Sub-Collector on 4.10.1991 drawn the attention of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli to the contradictions found in the record relating to these lands and asked the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit a detailed report in the matter. In the mean time, the State Government appears to have formulated certain guidelines through their G.O. Ms No. 242 Social Welfare (F) Department, Dated 4.12.1991 for implementing the action plan contemplated through G.O. Ms. No. 177. These guidelines framed by the Government have been annexed thereto and they were communicated by the Project Officer, ITDA, Paderu to the Sub-Collector on 14.12.1991. The file also contains certain recorded statements made by Kuda Ranga Babu, S/o Late Chinnaiah Dora and others. It was stated by them that the writ petitioner is the son-in-law of one Sri Anisetti Pothu Raju who worked in the Revenue Department earlier and hence using their influence, entries in the revenue records have been got altered favourably to enable him to secure a patta. It was alleged in that statement that one Sri Kuda Chinnayya Dora, S/o Sanyasi Dora, the father of the 1st joint statement holder was cultivating these lands and that Kuda Chinnayya Dora died somewhere in 1984 and taking advantage of this fact the land cultivated by Chinnayya Dora has been favourably got mutated in favour of the writ petitioner who is a non-tribal. The statement given by these 18 persons was placed at page 183 (put in red ink) of the file. The Sub-Collector, after conducting a detailed inquiry into the matter submitted a report on 20.8.1992 to the Project Officer. The Sub-Collector, Paderu suggested not to enter into sale transaction in respect of the lands offered by the petitioner. This is the reason why the respondents have finalized the acquisition of lands offered by Smt. C.B. Pearl and paid her the appropriate amount of compensation as well. In respect of lands offered by the petitioner, the State did not come forward to acquire them. The file at page 317 also contained the joint statement of Gaduthuri Raja Babu, S/o Linganna Padal, his brothers Gaduthuri Balaiah Padal S/o Linganna Padal, Gaduthuri Chanti Babu, Gaduthuri Nagaraj Pandal, Gaduthuri Jogi Raju was also placed. Serious allegations were made by them against the petitioner. Once again the matter has been studied very carefully by the subsequent Sub-Collector, Paderu, who by his report dated 1.10.1993 preferred to go by the earlier report of the Sub-Collector, dated 20.8.1992. In view of this decision, the proposal relating to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner has been closed.
6. From a perusal of the file produced by the learned Government Pleader, it emerges that the offer made by the petitioner for sale of lands held by him has been studied carefully and thereafter a conscious decision was taken not to acquire the said lands. As to whether the State should acquire a particular land for achieving a public purpose cannot be answered without addressing the genuine concerns of the State itself. What has been announced by the State Government contained in their G.O. Ms. No. 177 SW (F) Department, dated 18.12.1990 and for implementation of which policy guidelines have been circulated through G.O. Ms. No. 242 SW (F) Department dated 4.12.1991 is an action plan or a policy of the State to promote the welfare of the tribal population. Though the State preferred to acquire the lands held by the non-tribals in scheduled areas and assign the same at the rate of two acres per family to poor landless scheduled tribe families, it is obvious that it proposed to acquire lands over which no dispute hovers. When it came to the lands offered by Mrs. C.B. Pearl, they have found no difficulty. When it came to the question of lands offered by the petitioner, they had to take into account certain ground realities. In view of the circumstances and facts noticed by them specifically, the respondents have not preferred to acquire the lands of the petitioner. It will not be possible to describe the decision thus arrived at by the respondents as a whimsical decision. In my opinion, it is not open to this court to examine the correctness or tenability of such reasons, inasmuch as, whether a particular land should be acquired or not depends upon certain elements of subjective satisfaction for ensuring that the State will not unnecessarily and or unproductively spend its precious resources. If the lands of the petitioner are not acquired, the consequential question of payment of compensation would not arise at all. The writ petitioner has prayed for payment of compensation. When once the lands offered by him have not been acquired by the State, the question of payment of compensation simply would not arise. There is no material on record to lend support to the claim of the petitioner that the respondents have inducted tribals into his land. If there was any such encroachment, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to law for securing their eviction. But that factor cannot entitle him to seek payment of compensation. I do not find any merit or justification behind the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation for his lands which were not acquired at all by the respondents. Therefore, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. But, however, without costs.
