Judgment :- T. Meena Kumari, J. 1. The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30-3-2009 in W.P.No.14918 of 2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 3. The appellants filed the above writ petition No. 14918 of 2008 seeking a mandamus declaring the Notification Ref. No. B1/508/09 dated 6.6.2008 issued by the first respondent under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in local newspapers on 19.6.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. 4. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are as follows: According to the petitioners, they are in occupation and enjoyment of various extents of lands mentioned in the schedule annexed to the 4(1) notification which is their ancestral property. Pudipalli is a village located in Devipatnam mandal in the Scheduled area of East Godavari district. All the lands in the village are the ancestral property of Scheduled Tribes mainly belonging to Koya Dora community. Some non-tribals tried to encroach upon part of the land claiming that they possess pattas under A.P. Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulations, briefly known as Regulation 2 of 1970. According to the petitioners, the said pattas were given behind their back and they recently came to know about the same and are taking steps to challenge the same in an appropriate forum. Petitioners came to know that on taking up of the Polavaram project (Indirasagar Project), Pudipalli village is one of the 42 villages of Devipatnam mandal that would be submerged in the reservoir. The non-tribals claiming title over the subject land, with an intention to knock away the compensation, prevailed upon the revenue and police officials and are pressurizing the petitioners and other tribals to vacate and hand it over to them. In the year 2005, such pressure was exerted in connection with land in Survey Nos.14/1, 14/2, 15/3, 17/1, 17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 18/2 and 19/2 of Pudipalli, the total extent of which is 18.34 hectares. At that juncture, petitioners filed W.P.No.25242 of 2005 before this Court complaining of the unlawful pressure being exerted on the tribals by the revenue and police officials. This Court, while admitting the said writ petition, granted interim order directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners and other tribals in possession of the land. At that juncture, petitioners filed W.P.No.25242 of 2005 before this Court complaining of the unlawful pressure being exerted on the tribals by the revenue and police officials. This Court, while admitting the said writ petition, granted interim order directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners and other tribals in possession of the land. In the 4(1) notification since the names of non-tribals were shown as owners and which would threw up a different cause of action, the said writ petition was withdrawn with leave to challenge the 4(1) notification. Hence the present writ petition. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Executive Engineer, ISHW Division No.5, Sitanagaram, East Godavari district submitted a requisition to the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project vide letter No.DB/JTO.1/LA(FRL) 773m dated 27.11.2006 for acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.722.12 cents in Sy.No.10/1 etc., situated at Pudipalli village of Devipatnam mandal for the purpose of submergence of the lands in the scheduled area under Indira Sagar (Polavaram) project. On receipt of the said requisition, the Special Collector (L.A.), Indira Sagar Project, while sending the land plan schedules, has instructed the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Indira Sagar Project, Left Main Canal Unit-I, Rajahmundry vide Ref.B1/673/2006 dated 1.2.2007 to get the survey of the land done and submit land acquisition proposals. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector got the land surveyed and prepared the sub-division record for the land requisitioned by the Executive Engineer, ISHW Division No.5, Sitanagaram. The Special Deputy Collector divided the requisitioned land into two blocks and initially submitted land acquisition proposals for draft notification and draft declaration to the Special Collector vide letter Nos.B/9/08 dated 12.5.2008 and 21.6.2008 respectively for an extent of Ac.212-42 cents in R.S.No.10/1 etc. for necessary approval. Thereupon, the Special Collector approved the draft notification and draft declaration on 6.6.2008 and 2.7.2008 respectively and the same were published in District Gazette and in two local daily newspapers as required under the Act. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Indira Sagar Project, Left Main Canal Unit-I, Rajahmundry is the primary authority for initiating all processes as per law under Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Indira Sagar Project, Left Main Canal Unit-I, Rajahmundry is the primary authority for initiating all processes as per law under Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, Pudipalli village is one of the villages likely to be submerged as per requisition by the Irrigation authority. All the cases of Tribals attract Rehabilitation and Resettlement package vide G.O.Ms.No.68, Irrigation & CAD (Project Wing-LAIV-R&R) Department dated 8.4.2005 and Grama Sabhas were already held in all villages likely to be submerged. There is an action plan for completion of Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the project affected families by July 2009 in view of the fact that water will be impounded in Pudipalli village upto 30 mts. level by July 2009. In view of the said urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with duly invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notices under Section 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act on 18.7.2008 to all the interested persons, including the owners, asking them to attend the award enquiry on 6.8.2008 and to show their nature of claim and interest over the land proposed for acquisition and establish their title over the land. The said notices were placed in all conspicuous places in the manner prescribed under the Act. The draft notification was issued as per the proposal sent by the Land Acquisition Officer who relied on the relevant available record i.e. Settlement Register etc. The names of the petitioners were not notified since their names did not find place in the adangal. All these facts have been revealed during the award enquiry. Any claimants having interest, including the petitioners, have to establish their right and title over the land proposed for acquisition. In fact, the draft notification and draft declaration were issued based on adangal/settlement record showing the names of those patta holders/successors etc., who got settlement pattas under the A.P. (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation 1970, as was initially proposed/submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer vide letters dated 12.5.2008 and 21.6.2008 for draft notification and draft declaration. It is true that 42 villages, including Pudipalli village, would be submerged under Indira Sagar Project. It is true that 42 villages, including Pudipalli village, would be submerged under Indira Sagar Project. Further, the petitioners also filed W.P.No.25242 of 2005 before this Court, but the contention of petitioners that they are in occupation and enjoyment of various extents of lands is not correct and hence, denied. The land proposed for acquisition is situated in the scheduled area and non-tribals are the registered holders of notified lands as per fair adangal of Pudipalli village, hence their names have been notified for acquisition. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners are in occupation and enjoyment of the said land. Even before issuing of the notification and initiating land acquisition proceedings, the Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli and Mandal Praja Parishad, Devipatnam were consulted and their acceptance was obtained in the form of resolutions (vide Resolution No.9 dated 3.9.2007 from Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli and vide resolution No.63 dated 2.3.2008 from the Mandal Praja Parishad, Devipatnam) under the provisions of Section 242-F of Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act 40 of 1996 and a Grama Sabha was also conducted at Pudipalli village on 17.4.2008. Prior to this, for getting permission from the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, for implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan for Scheduled Tribes Project Affected Families (STPAFs) under Indira Sagar Project in Andhra Pradesh, the Government of A.P. submitted information to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as per the requirement under Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and consultation was completed by conduct of Grama Sabhas in all 76 likely to be affected villages covered by Panchayats falling in the territory of Andhra Pradesh (8 in East Godavari district, 8 in West Godavari district and 60 in Khammam district). As a part of it, a Grama Sabha was conducted in Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli on 31.5.2006 and consent was obtained to that effect. Further, as a part of implementation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan for Scheduled Tribes project affected families, house site pattas and land for land were granted to certain Scheduled Tribes Project Affected Families of Paragasanipadu, H/o Pudipalli village at Peddabheempalli village, including some of the petitioners. As such, the contention of the petitioners that they had no opportunity to raise objections against the draft notification before the Land Acquisition Officer is not tenable. As such, the contention of the petitioners that they had no opportunity to raise objections against the draft notification before the Land Acquisition Officer is not tenable. The action was initiated under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package and the land acquisition in the likely submerging scheduled areas are correlated and cannot be de-linked from another, as Grama Sabhas were conducted in the submerging areas by the Government machinery concerned. As and when lands are going to be submerged under Indira Sagar Project, the implementation of R & R package will precede simultaneously. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned notification issued in complete ignorance of Act 40 of 1996 and Part VI-A of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act is not correct. In fact, notification was issued in accordance with law by following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and also by consulting the Mandal Parishad, Devipatnam and Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli and after obtaining consent for acquisition of lands at Pudipalli and its hamlet villages as required under Section 242-F of A.P. Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 40 of 1996. Further, opportunity will be given to the petitioners to attend the award enquiry and it is open to them to establish their title over the land proposed for acquisition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The appellants, being the petitioners, contended that they are the possessors of the lands which are under acquisition through the said Notification and they being tribals, their lands could not have been acquired as they were in possession of the same. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no consultation as contemplated under law and even though consultation was made, it is not in accordance with the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (Act 40/96). Learned counsel also argued that since the village Pudipalli is located in the scheduled area and all the lands are situated in the scheduled area, the Government, before initiation of the acquisition proceedings to acquire the land for public purpose i.e., Polavaram project (Indira Sagar), should have consulted the Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli, for implementation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement to the project affected families in the scheduled areas. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that consultation means not only deliberations but there should be actual consultation among the members of Grama Sabha or the public. He also argued that the contention of the respondents that they have consulted the Gram Panchayats, Pudilpalli and Devipatnam and obtained acceptance in the form of resolutions would not amount to 'consultation' and that is not the procedure contemplated under Act 40 of 1996. 8. Learned counsel reiterated the arguments that were advanced before the Learned single judge even before us and argued that as per the law laid down by the Apex court in HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN v., P P SINGH ( (2003)4 SCC 239 ), the word 'consultation' means "to discuss something together, to deliberate" and argued that in this case there is no material available to show that deliberations were conducted with the officials of the Gram Panchayats. He also contended that the learned single judge has not taken into consideration that there is no actual consultation or deliberation in this particular case and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the order of the single Judge needs interference in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel further contended that the process of land acquisition is governed by the special laws applicable to the administration of the Scheduled Areas and by virtue of amendment to the Constitution, excluding the Scheduled areas from its purview by virtue of Art. 243(M)(1) and leaving it to Parliament in Art. 243M(4) to extend Part IX with such modifications as deemed fit to the Scheduled areas, Parliament enacted the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 40 of 1996. It is also contended that as per Sec.4(i) of the Act, before any land acquisition for any project is undertaken in the Scheduled areas, the Panchayat at the appropriate level has to be consulted. Learned counsel also contended that as there were no such consultations and deliberations, mere passing of the resolution by the Panchayats would not amount to consultation nor participation of the representatives of the public in Gram Sabhas. Hence, the land acquisition proceedings are to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. Learned counsel also contended that as there were no such consultations and deliberations, mere passing of the resolution by the Panchayats would not amount to consultation nor participation of the representatives of the public in Gram Sabhas. Hence, the land acquisition proceedings are to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, basing on the records, contended that on the requisition made by the Special Collector (L.A)., Indira Sagar Project to get survey of the land done and to submit land acquisition proposals, the Special Deputy Collector, got the land surveyed and submitted proposals for acquisition of the land. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector initially submitted land acquisition proposals for draft notification and draft declaration to the Special Collector, dated 12.5.2008 and 21.6.2008 respectively for an extent of Ac 212-42 cents for approval. The Special Collector approved the draft notification and draft declaration on 6.6.2008 and 2.7.2008 respectively and the same were published in the District Gazette and in two local daily news papers as required under the Act. 11. It is also contended that the Pudipalli village is one of the villages likely to be submerged as per the requisition by the Irrigation authority. All the cases of Tribals attracts Rehabilitation and Resettlement package vide G.O.Ms.No. 68, Irrigation & CAD (Project Wing-LAIV-R&R) Department, dated 8.4.2005 and Gram Sabhas were already held in all the places which were likely to be submerged and an action plan was drafted for completion of Rehabilitation and Resettlement for the effected families by July 2009. It is also contended that as there was urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, duly invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer issued notices under Section 9(1), 9 (3) and 10 of the Act on 18.7.2008 to all the interested persons, including the owners, asking them to attend the award enquiry and establish title over the land. It is also contended by the Government Pleader that consultations have been completed by conduct of Gram Sabhas in all 76 likely to be affected villages covered by Panchayats falling in the territory of Andhra Pradesh (8 in East Godavari district, 8 in West Godavari district and 60 in Khammam district). It is also contended by the Government Pleader that consultations have been completed by conduct of Gram Sabhas in all 76 likely to be affected villages covered by Panchayats falling in the territory of Andhra Pradesh (8 in East Godavari district, 8 in West Godavari district and 60 in Khammam district). As a part of it, a Gram Sabha was conducted in Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli on 31.5.2006 and Devipatnam Mandal Parishad and their acceptance was obtained in the form of resolutions, vide Resolution No.9 dated 3.9.2007 and Resolution No. 63 dated 2.3.2008 respectively under the provisions of Section 242-F of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (Act 40 of 1996) and that they also conducted a Gram Sabha at Pudipalli village on 17.4.2008. It is also contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh submitted information to the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs as required under the Act for getting permission for implementing R & R Plan for Scheduled Tribes Project in Andhra Pradesh, and the consultation has been completed by conduct of Gram Sabhas in all 76 affected villages. It is also contended that the Gram Sabha was conducted in Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli in respect of Pudipalli Panchayat on 31.5.2006 and that they obtained consent to that effect. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants that no consultation was made as required under the law has no legs to stand and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of un-official respondents 3 to 25 argued that these respondents are the owners and title holders of the lands shown in the Section 4 (1) Notification and that the appellants are the only possessors, as such the appellants have no locus standi to file the writ petition questioning the S.4(1) Notification. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the same is not filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation that the appellants are not the owners of the lands in question but they are the only possessors of some of the lands that are acquired under 4(1) Notification. 13. It is further contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the same is not filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation that the appellants are not the owners of the lands in question but they are the only possessors of some of the lands that are acquired under 4(1) Notification. 13. Learned counsel for unofficial respondents, in reply to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants, argued that though the appellants were issued encumbrance certificate, that itself does not confer any title in favour of the appellants over the lands in question and for that reason also the appellants have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Further, it is not open to the appellants to contend that there was no effective consultation in view of the fact that they have no locus standi to file the writ petition and question the S.4(1) Notification as they are not the owners of the lands and all the unofficial respondents are shown as owners in Adangals. 14. In reply to the arguments of the unofficial respondents, learned counsel for the appellants with regard to locus standi of the appellants to file the writ petition as well as the present appeal, contended that the appellants have locus standi to file the writ petition and also the writ appeal for the reason that the appellants are the possessors of the lands and as the authorities have dispensed with the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A duly invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants have no other remedy except to file the writ petition questioning the said Notification. 15. After hearing all the parties and perusing the material available on record including the order of the learned single Judge, the main contention urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K Bala Gopal, was that there was no consultation with the Gram Panchayat, Pudipalli and merely conducting of Gram Sabhas does not entitle the respondents to say that there was consultation. 16. In view of the rival contentions raised before us, the only dispute in this appeal is whether before proceeding with the land acquisition, consultations and deliberations were made as per the provisions of Act 40 of 1996 in the affected areas or not. 17. 16. In view of the rival contentions raised before us, the only dispute in this appeal is whether before proceeding with the land acquisition, consultations and deliberations were made as per the provisions of Act 40 of 1996 in the affected areas or not. 17. It has to be seen that with regard to the word 'consultation', the Apex Court in S.P.GUPTHA V TARKUNDE & OTHERS (AIR 1982 SC 148) had an occasion to deal with what is meant by the word "CONSULTATION". In the said decision, majority of the judges held that "Now Article 217 does not require that any particular procedure should be followed for full and effective consultation nor does it insist that the relevant facts on which the final decision of the Central Government is based should be conveyed to the other three constitutional functionaries in any particular manner or by the Central Government itself. What is necessary to ensure full and effective consultation within the meaning of Art. 217 is that the Central Government as well as each of the three constitutional functionaries required to be consulted "must have for its consideration full and identical facts which can at once constitute both the source and foundation of the final decision" and it is immaterial as to how such "full and identical facts" are conveyed by one authority to the other. It is sufficient compliance with the constitution requirement of Art. 217 if the self-same facts on which the final decision is taken by the Central Government are placed before each of the three constitutional functionaries required to be consulted and their opinion is taken on the basis of such facts. Whatever be the manner in which these facts are brought to their notice." 18. Learned counsel for the appellants, with regard to the meaning of the word "consultation", relied upon the judgment in UNION OF INDIA v SANKALCHAND HIMATLAL SHETH ((1997)4 SCC 193) and drew attention of this Court to paras 38 and 39 of the said judgment, which read as under: "38. In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition. 1960, Volume 9, page 3) to 'consult' is defined as 'to discuss something together, to deliberate'. Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 16a, Ed. 1956, page 1242) also says that the word 'consult' is frequently defined as meaning 'to discuss something together, or to deliberate'. In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition. 1960, Volume 9, page 3) to 'consult' is defined as 'to discuss something together, to deliberate'. Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 16a, Ed. 1956, page 1242) also says that the word 'consult' is frequently defined as meaning 'to discuss something together, or to deliberate'. Quoting Rollo v. Minister of Town arid Country Planning and Fletcher v. Minister of Town and Country Planning Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Volume I, Third Edition, 1952, page 596) says in the context of the expression "consultation with any local authorities" that "consultation means that, on the one side, the Minister must supply sufficient information to the local authority to enable them to tender advice, and. on the other hand, a sufficient opportunity must be given to the local authority to tender advice". Thus, deliberation is the quintessence of consultation. That implies that each individual case must be considered separately on the basis of its own facts. Policy transfers on a wholesale basis which leave no scope for considering the facts of each particular case and which are influenced by one-sided governmental considerations are outside the contemplation of our Constitution. 39. IT may not be a happy analogy, but it is commonsense that he who wants to 'consult' a doctor cannot keep facts up his sleeve. He does so at his peril for he can receive no true advice unless he discloses facts necessary for the diagnosis of his malady. Homely analogies apart, which can be multiplied, a decision of the Madras High court in R. Pushpam v. State of Madras Furnishes a good parallel. S. 43 (b), Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, provided that for the purpose of election of councillors to a Municipal council, the Local government 'after consulting the Municipal Council' may determine the wards in which reserved seats shall be set apart. While setting aside the reservation, made in respect of one of the wards on the ground that the Local government had failed to discharge its statutory obligation of consulting the Municipal council, Justice K. Subba Rao, who then adorned the bench of the Madras High court, observed: "the word 'consult' implies a conference of two or more persons or an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable them to evolve a correct, or at least, a satisfactory solution". In order that the two minds may be able to confer and produce a mutual impact, it is essential that each must have for its consideration full and identical facts, which can at once constitute both the source and foundation of the final decision." and would contend that since no consultation as required under law has been made before acquisition of land, the impugned notification to the extent of petitioners land is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside. 19. The apex Court in SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD SSOCIATION AND ANOTHER, V., UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 268) held that the word "consult" as understood in ordinary parlance means to ask or seek advice or the views of a person on any given subject i.e., to take counsel from another, but it does not convey that the consultant is bound by the advise. In certain situations an expert in the field may be consulted but it is only to help the consultant to take a final decision. By consulting even an expert the consultant does not mortgage his decision, the advise given is only an in-put among the various factors which enter decision making. He may consult one or more experts and he may accept the advise he considers most acceptable or rational but he is always free to reach his own conclusion. It is ultimately his responsibility to reach a sound decision and he is accountable for the same. Consultation would require at least two persons, they may consult each other by correspondence or by sitting across the table. A may consult B on a given subject, obtain the opinion of B and act on it or he may, if not satisfied, discuss the issue with him or convey his doubts in writing, seek his clarification and if satisfied accept the advise or depart there from. 20. So, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court that there is no specific procedure for making a 'consultation'. 20. So, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court that there is no specific procedure for making a 'consultation'. Pursuant to the reference made by the authorities to the Gram Sabhas, where the matter was referred to the Gram Panchayats for their information and acceptance, which accepted the proposal by virtue of the resolutions in the Gram Sabhas, constituting both consultation and deliberations as they have taken a final decision, which resulted in the subsequent decision by the authorities to issue S.4 (1) Notification for the acquisition of the land in that areas. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that no consultations have been made before acquisition of land in Pudipalli village has no legs to stand. 21. Further, it has to be construed that there cannot be any particular procedure that could be laid down for the process of consultation and there cannot be a far fetched argument to come to the conclusion that 'consultation' means only the participation of all the incumbents by deliberations. In the absence of any procedure being laid down and as contended by the learned Government Pleader as the project was a long pending project which is well known as "Polavaram Project" any applicable procedure can be followed for compliance with the process of consultation and that the authorities have already referred the matter to the Gram Panchayat, which in-turn has expressed its decision by way of a resolution. 22. As per records, in the case on hand it is clearly established that the authorities, prior to the issuance of notification for acquisition of the land, have referred the matter to the Gram Sabhas and Panchayats as required under the provisions of the Act and obtained acceptance of the proposal from the Gram Sabhas through their resolutions and took effective steps for implementation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme in the affected areas by providing house site pattas and grant of alternative land to certain Scheduled Tribes Project Affected Families, including some of the appellants. Further, in the absence of any rigid procedure being laid down for the process of consultation, by no means, can it be said that there is no consultation before initiating of the land acquisition proceedings. 23. The next contention that arises for consideration is whether the appellants have locus standi to file the writ petition. Further, in the absence of any rigid procedure being laid down for the process of consultation, by no means, can it be said that there is no consultation before initiating of the land acquisition proceedings. 23. The next contention that arises for consideration is whether the appellants have locus standi to file the writ petition. In this regard, Pahani Patrikas or Adangals have been filed as material papers and the learned counsel brought to our notice that the names of the appellants have been shown therein as possessors. Learned counsel also brought to our notice that the appellants were issued encumbrance certificates. But as rightly contended by the counsel for unofficial respondents the names of the appellants were mentioned as possessors only and not as owners and establishment of the right of the ownership over the said lands is purely a disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolved in the writ petition and as the writ petition is not filed in the form of a public interest litigation, it has to be held that the writ petitioners, who are the appellants herein, have no locus standi to question the land acquisition proceedings. 24. For the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge and therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.