Judgment : The petitioners pray for a writ of Mandamus in the form a declaration to the effect that the action of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, the 1st respondent herein, in making allotment of Acs.2.53 cents of land in survey No.15/6 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the said land, is also prayed for. The petitioners submit that their parents owned Acs.45.85 cents of land in various survey numbers of Kurmannapalem Village and that they inherited the land. It is stated that the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, published three notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 06.07.1984, and one notification, dated 28.08.1984, proposing to acquire Acs.27.26 cents of the said land, for a project named as “Sites and Services”, undertaken by the 1st respondent. They filed W.P.No.13720 and 13721 of 1984, challenging the said notifications. During the pendency of those proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, whereunder, the 1st respondent agreed a) to acquire Acs.41.85 cents of land, including Acs.27.26 cents notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, b) to approve layout in respect of Acs.4.00 of land in favour of the petitioners and c) to pay compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. The terms of the agreement was reduced into writing on 20.11.1986. In accordance with that, two more notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, in June, 1988, regarding the balance of the land. Awards were also passed covering an extent of Acs.36.07 cents. However, no award was passed in respect of land of an extent of Acs.2.12 cents in survey No.12/1 and Acs.2.53 cents in survey No.15/6. The controversy in this writ petition is about the 2nd item (for short ‘the land’). The petitioners contend that though the land was included in the notification, dated 06.07.1984, no award was passed within the time stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act, and thereby, the further proceedings lapsed. The petitioners submit that respondents 2 and 3, the Authorities of the APSRTC, started claiming rights over the land, on the strength of an alleged allotment in their favour, by the 1st respondent. The petitioners submit that respondents 2 and 3, the Authorities of the APSRTC, started claiming rights over the land, on the strength of an alleged allotment in their favour, by the 1st respondent. They contend that when the land did not vest in the 1st respondent, on account of failure to pass award, the question of allotting the same to others, does not arise. With these and other subsidiary contentions, the petitioners submit that they are entitled to remain in possession of the land and that respondents 2 and 3 do not have any right to interfere with the same. In its counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent admitted the facts pertaining to the publication of notifications, the existence of agreement between it and the petitioners and absence of award in respect of the land. The justification pleaded for not passing the award in respect of the land is that the Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition) attached to their Office, took the view that the original classification of the land was “Assessed Waste Dry” (AWD), as per the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA), and thereby, it stands owned by the Government. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Special Tahasildar (LA), requested the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, to alienate the land in favour of the 1st respondent, duly cancelling the assignment, if any. The 1st respondent stated that no notices or proceedings were issued to it, in this regard. Reference is also made to the fact that the land was included in the declaration submitted by the father of the petitioners, under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’), and the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal taking the view that the family does not hold any land, in excess of the ceiling limits. It has also stated that the land was allotted to the APSRTC in the year 1981. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavits, are filed. They submit that, on a requisition made by them, the 1st respondent allotted the land in survey No.15/6 of Kurmannapalem on payment of Rs.8 lakhs and another extent of Acs.5.00 in Simhabpuri, on payment of Rs.11 lakhs. According to them, the petitioners do not have any right over the land, since it is classified as AWD. They have also raised the plea of adverse possession. According to them, the petitioners do not have any right over the land, since it is classified as AWD. They have also raised the plea of adverse possession. It is stated that after the land was handed over, basement, for construction of a compound wall was raised, a bore-well was dug and a passenger shed was constructed. Respondents 2 and 3 raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that it involves the adjudication of disputed questions of fact. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents. They submit that the plea raised by the respondents that the land is classified as AWD, is not borne out by record and that when an application was submitted to the authorities of the Revenue Department to furnish the SFA, a reply was given to the effect that the record is not available. It is also stated that respondents 2 and 3 cannot raise the plea of adverse possession, once the land was the subject-matter of the proceedings under the Act. They have also placed before this Court certain record, which is to the effect that the Revenue Department never transferred or alienated to the 1st respondent, and that the 1st respondent itself has cancelled the allotment, made by it, to the 2nd respondent duly refunding the amount collected from the latter. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Kurmannapalem Village is in the outskirts of Visakhapatnam and when part of the land owned by the petitioners was sought to be acquired, proceedings were challenged. He contends that the grievance of the petitioners was more about acquisition of a portion of their land, leaving the rest of it, and in that view of the matter, a settlement was arrived at, whereunder, the 1st respondent agreed to acquire Acs.41.00 @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and to approve layout for Acs.4.00, in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that, in pursuance of the said agreement, notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act for the left over area were issued and awards were also passed almost for the entire area, except for the land i.e. Acs.2.53 cents in survey No.15/6. He further submits that, in pursuance of the said agreement, notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act for the left over area were issued and awards were also passed almost for the entire area, except for the land i.e. Acs.2.53 cents in survey No.15/6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the land, which is notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, would vest in the Government only when compensation is paid and since no award was passed in respect of the said land, it continues to be with the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel submits that there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent to allot the land to the 2nd respondent, since it did not acquire it, nor was it alienated by the Government, in its favour. He further submits that the plea of adverse possession, raised by respondents 2 and 3 is totally untenable. He submits that the plea as to the maintainability of the writ petition is equally untenable. According to him, the question of the Government or its agency raising the plea of adverse possession, does not arise, and at any rate, the 2nd respondent has to derive its right, only through the 1st respondent and if the 1st respondent fails to establish his rights, the 2nd respondent does not have any independent right, of its own. Learned Advocate General, has appeared for respondents 2 and 3. He submits that the land was taken over from the petitioners way back in the year 1986 and the writ petition filed in the year 2012 in relation thereto, is not maintainable. He further submits that the Government took the view that the land is classified as AWD, and unless the petitioners challenge the connected proceedings, they cannot claim any rights, vis-à-vis the land. Smt. V. Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that though his client did not have any objection for passing the award, in respect of the land, it was not passed on account of the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that it has already vested in the Government, by operation of law. She contends that the land was allotted to the 2nd respondent and at one point of time, but the allotment was cancelled, on finding that the 2nd respondent did not develop the same. She has reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. She contends that the land was allotted to the 2nd respondent and at one point of time, but the allotment was cancelled, on finding that the 2nd respondent did not develop the same. She has reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The parents of the petitioners held about Acs.45.00 of land in different survey numbers of Kurmannapalem Village. The record discloses that a declaration under Section 8 of the Ceiling Act was filed and the primary Tribunal passed an order holding that the family does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits. It is not in dispute that the ‘land’ was also shown in the declaration. The 1st respondent wanted to acquire about Acs.27.00 of the land of the petitioners. Writ petition was filed challenging the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 06.07.1984. This is a typical case where the grievance of the petitioners was more about non-acquisition of the left over area and not much about the area notified for acquisition. The 1st respondent was also too willing to acquire about Acs.20.00 more from the petitioners, and agreement was also reached as to the quantum of compensation. One favour, which the petitioners sought, was as to the approval be accorded for a layout in respect of Acs.4.00. Additional notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act for the left over area were issued. It is necessary to mention here that the ‘land’ was included in the first set of notifications, published under Section 4(1) of the Act. Almost all the terms of agreement between the petitioners and the 1st respondent were honoured and implemented, except that award was not in respect of the land in question. At one point of time the 1st respondent asked its Land Acquisition Officer as to why the award was not passed for the ‘land’. A reply was given in the year 1989 to the effect that the classification of the land is ‘AWD’ and that the 1st respondent can seek alienation thereof from the Government, duly cancelling the assignments, if any. The record placed before this Court by the petitioners discloses that on the basis of the view expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent addressed a letter, dated 25.04.1989 to the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, with a request to alienate the land in survey Nos.12/1 and 15/6. The record placed before this Court by the petitioners discloses that on the basis of the view expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent addressed a letter, dated 25.04.1989 to the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, with a request to alienate the land in survey Nos.12/1 and 15/6. In reply thereto, the Joint Collector addressed a letter, dated 29.04.1989, which reads: “Please refer your D.O. letter cited above on alienation of Government land in S.Nos.12/1 and 15/6 of Kurmannapalem Village in favour of Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, covering an extent of Ac.4.65. Since it is a valuable Government site, which is being alienated to VUDA for commercial purposes, I request you to pay the land cost to the tune of Rs.2.50 lakhs in favour of District Sports Authority for the development of sports in the district. The site will be handed over to you on the receipt of the cheque from you.” It is not, however, evident as to whether the 1st respondent has made any payment or an order of alienation was passed in its favour by the Government, as regards this land. The 1st respondent allotted Acs.5.00 including the land in question in favour of the 2nd respondent, on payment of Rs.8 lakhs. However, this did not fructify. Through its letter, dated 18.01.2005, the 1st respondent cancelled the allotment of the land made in favour of the 2nd respondent and returned the entire amount received from it, on the ground that the land was not developed. Correspondence ensued in this regard and at one stage, the Government, in Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, intervened. A letter, dated 24.05.2005, was addressed to the 1st respondent with a request to reconsider the decision of cancelling the allotment made to the 2nd respondent. The letter reads: “I invite your attention to the references cited and to inform you that in the circumstances reported by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC that they have proposed to utilise the land for the construction of bus terminals i.e., for public purpose. Government after careful examination of the matter felt that the VUDA has to reconsider their decision of cancelling the allotment made to APSRTC. Therefore, Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority is directed to reconsider the earlier decision and furnish the compliance report to Government.” It is not known as to what ensued thereafter. Government after careful examination of the matter felt that the VUDA has to reconsider their decision of cancelling the allotment made to APSRTC. Therefore, Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority is directed to reconsider the earlier decision and furnish the compliance report to Government.” It is not known as to what ensued thereafter. An interim order was passed in the present writ petition. It appears that there were some claims and counter-claims as regards the possession over the land, that led the Collector, Visakhapatnam, to address a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, to verify the matter. In his report, dated 30.03.2012, the Tahasildar, summed up his observations as under: “In view of the above, I submit that it is not known how the VUDA has hand over an extent of Ac.5.00 cts that which including S.No.15/6 and 15/7, in favour of APSRTC, stating that one side that VUDA have not acquired the land in S.No.15/6 vide letter Rc.No.11/09/RI_II/dt.26-11-2009 of the Special Tahsildar, LA, VUDA, further it is also not known how the Government lands covered by S.No.15/6 and 7 were sold out. Hence, I request to kindly pursue the details apprised above and necessary instructions sought to proceed further in this matter.” So far as the 1st respondent is concerned, its counter-affidavit is silent on several important aspects. Left to itself, it did not contest the claim of the petitioners, particularly in view of the fact that the award was not passed in relation to the land. The justification pleaded by them for not passing the award is that the Land Acquisition Officer opined that the land is classified as AWD. The letter, through which, the Land Acquisition Officer stated the reasons reads as under: “In the reference cited, I have been asked to report why award was not passed for the land in S.No.12/1 of Kurmannapalem Village through it is covered by agreement between VUDA and the land owner Sri K.Ramabrahmam and others. I submit that S.No.12/1 measuring Ac.2.12 of Kurmannapalem Village stands originally classified as Assessed Waste Dry as per the statement Fair adangal. As it is the state land at the disposal of not pass award for this S.No. though it is covered by agreement and advance possession taken by VUDA. I submit that S.No.12/1 measuring Ac.2.12 of Kurmannapalem Village stands originally classified as Assessed Waste Dry as per the statement Fair adangal. As it is the state land at the disposal of not pass award for this S.No. though it is covered by agreement and advance possession taken by VUDA. Similarly, the then Special Deputy Collector did not pass award for S.No.15/6 measuring Ac.2.53 as this land is also Assessed Waste dry, though covered by agreement. I, therefore, request that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Fajuwaka may be addressed to alienate the land in favour of VUDA, duly cancelling the assignments, if any.” In the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is stated that no steps ensued, after this communication. Taking note of the plea raised by the respondents in their respective counter-affidavits, particularly as regards classification of the land, the petitioners submitted a representation, to the Offices of the District Collector, and Tahasildar, with a request to furnish copy of SFA. The Office of the District Collector issued an endorsement, dated 23.03.2009 to the effect that the SFA for Kurmannapalem Village is not available. To the same effect is the endorsement, dated 31.01.2012, issued by the office of the Tahasildar. Even in the subsequent, report submitted in the recent past, it was mentioned that the SFA is not available. From the cumulative effect of the acts and omissions on the part of the authorities of the Revenue Department, Urban Development Authority and the Road Transport Corporation, the following aspects can be discerned: a) the District Collector recognised the ownership of the petitioners over the land in survey No.15/6 when he published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 06.07.1984, wherein this was included; b) the State acknowledged the ownership of the petitioner’s family, over the said land, when a declaration filed under Section 8 of the Ceiling Act was processed and order was passed to the effect that the family does not hold any land in excess of ceiling limits, nor any exception was taken for its inclusion, in the declaration; c) there is nothing on record, as of now, to disclose that the land in survey No.15/6 is classified as AWD; and d) though the land was notified for acquisition, the proceedings under the Act lapsed, since no award was passed in respect thereof. Thereby, the 1st respondent does not derive title to the land, either through acquisition from the petitioners or alienation from the Government. Hence, it has no right to transfer or allot the same to the 2nd respondent. There were no transactions or proceedings between the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand. The latter claims rights through the 1st respondent. It is only when the 1st respondent has right or title over the land, that respondents 2 and 3 can assert the same, on the basis of any transfer or allotment. Once it emerges that the 1st respondent has no title or right over the land, respondents 2 and 3 have to fall in line. The plea of adverse possession raised by respondents 2 and 3 can not at all be countenanced. Such plea is available mostly to citizens in their inter se disputes. There may be instances of citizens claiming adverse possession against the State. The period of limitation stipulated in such cases, is larger compared to the one vis-à-vis a citizen. However, instances of State or its instrumentality raising the plea of adverse possession against the citizens, are unknown to law. Be that as it may, the occasion to raise the plea of adverse possession would arise only when the person raising it acknowledged the tile of his opponent, and assumes the possession of the land as an encroacher. The very commencement of possession in such cases, would be the result of an illegality. If a person or agency enters the possession, on the strength of allotment or transfer, it cannot raise such a plea because the possession is legal. Further, the 2nd respondent specifically derived rights from the 1st respondent and at no point of time, it treated the petitioners as the owners of the land, when it was allotted to it. If a person or agency enters the possession, on the strength of allotment or transfer, it cannot raise such a plea because the possession is legal. Further, the 2nd respondent specifically derived rights from the 1st respondent and at no point of time, it treated the petitioners as the owners of the land, when it was allotted to it. In RoopSingh v. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 ), the Supreme Court held: “…Once it is admitted by implication that plaintiff came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till the date of the suit, the plea of adverse possession would not be available to the defendant unless it has been asserted and pointed out hostile animus of retaining possession as an owner after getting in possession of the land.” In State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar ( AIR 2012 SC 559 ), the Supreme Court observed: “A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. It is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. Though we got this law of adverse possession from the British, it is important to note that these days English Courts are taking a very negative view towards the law of adverse possession. The English law was amended and changed substantially to reflect these changes, particularly in light of the view that property is a human right adopted by the European Commission. This Court in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma ( (2007) 6 SCC 59 ) observed that to understand the true nature of adverse possession, Fairweather v. St.Marylebone Property Co. (1962) 2 WLR 1020; (1962) 2 ALL ER 288 can be considered where House of Lords referring to Taylor v. Twinberrow (1930) 2 K.B. 16 termed adverse possession as a negative and consequential right effected only because somebody else’s positive right to access the Court is barred by operation of law. As against the rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. As against the rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. The right to property is now considered to be not only constitutional or statutory right but also a human right. Human rights have already been considered in realm of individual rights such as right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. But now human rights are gaining a multi faceted dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. “ In case the Government in its Revenue Department has any claim, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners, necessary proceedings have to be initiated and it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies. As long as such proceedings did not ensue, there is no justification for the respondents to treat the land as owned by the Government, particularly after it was notified under the Act. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition is mostly on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved and a writ petition is not the suitable remedy. However, the discussion undertaken in the foregoing paragraphs discloses that every fact is borne out by the record, and the adjudication is undertaken only on the basis of the facts, as regards which, there was no controversy. Further, once the land of the petitioners was notified for acquisition, they are entitled to insist that the prescribed procedure is followed by law. Once the respondents assumed the possession of the land on the basis of notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, they cannot arrogate to themselves, the right to enjoy it, even after the proceedings have lapsed, on account of failure to pass the award. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.