ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. 1. Petitioners, 57 in number filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.1 to 3 in paying the 50% Ex- gratia in respect of acquired agricultural lands of various extents in Sy.Nos.192, 209 & 224 situated at Ponnam Palli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District belongs to petitioners as per the Government land allotment policy vide G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 14.09.2012 is as being arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 & 300-A of Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 & 3 to pay 50% Ex-gratia in respect of acquired agricultural lands of various extents in Sy.Nos.192, 209 and 224 situated at Ponnam Palli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District belongs to petitioners as per the Government land allotment policy orders vide G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 14.09.2012 and pass such other order or orders ..." 2. a) Petitioner No.2 deposed the affidavit on his behalf as well as on behalf of other petitioners. It was contended, inter alia, that petitioners cultivated different extents of agricultural lands in survey Nos.192, 209 and 224 of Ponnam Palli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The particulars of the extents of land over which petitioners are claiming possession are as follows: Petitioners cultivated their respective lands, as mentioned supra, from 2008 to 2014. Thereafter, due to drought, most of the petitioners migrated to different places to eke out their livelihood. b) While so, Chairman and Managing Director, NREDCAP made requisition for allotment of Government land. Respondent No.2 allotted various extents of Government land including the lands cultivated by petitioners during the period 2008 to 2014. c) The extents of the land, where petitioners cultivated were taken over by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and, in turn, allotted to Solar Power Project. Petitioners immediately approached respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking compensation by way of ex-gratia. Petitioners made representations dated 04.05.2019 and 22.07.2019 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively. Respondent No.3 called for a report from respondent No.4. Pursuant to letter Ref.No.A/1272/2015, dated 29.07.2019, addressed by respondent No.3, respondent No.4, vide Ref.No.A/65/2020 dated 18.05.2020 submitted comprehensive report along with statement showing the details. Petitioners immediately approached respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking compensation by way of ex-gratia. Petitioners made representations dated 04.05.2019 and 22.07.2019 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively. Respondent No.3 called for a report from respondent No.4. Pursuant to letter Ref.No.A/1272/2015, dated 29.07.2019, addressed by respondent No.3, respondent No.4, vide Ref.No.A/65/2020 dated 18.05.2020 submitted comprehensive report along with statement showing the details. The said report discloses cultivation of land by the petitioners and, also possession of the petitioners over their respective extents in survey Nos.192, 209 and 224, as mentioned supra, from fasli 1417 to 1422. Respondent No.4 further reported to respondent No.3 about 'Government Allotment Policy' vide G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 14.09.2012. Since petitioners were in occupation of the lands between five to ten years, they are entitled to 50% ex-gratia equivalent to market value. However, ex-gratia is not paid. Hence, the writ petition. d) In support of petitioners' case, petitioners filed adangals for fasli 1417 to 1422 (calendar years 2008 to 2014). 3. a) Counter affidavit, deposed by respondent No.4, was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. It was contended inter alia, that as per RSR, land of an extent of Ac.50-85 cents and Ac.78-40 cents in survey Nos.192 and 209 respectively are classified as Raallagutta and an extent of Ac.340.04 cents of land in survey No.224 is classified as 'Hill Poramboke'. The lands are covered by big boulders and small hillocks, and they are totally unfit for cultivation. There are no traces of cultivation. b) As seen from the report, vide Rc.A/65/2020, dated 18.05.2020, the then Tahsildar, K.V. Sivaramaiah, submitted report to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Jammalamadugu and recommended ex-gratia to the petitioners. However, the said report is not emanated from its office, since there are no initials of concerned Clerk or Revenue Inspector. It contains only the signature of retired Tahsildar, K.V. Sivaramaiah, who retired on superannuation, on 30.06.2020. Just prior to his retirement, he signed the report on 18.05.2020. There is no report, said to have been communicated by the then Tahsildar, available in the office of RDO and hence, report vide Ref.No.A/65/2020 is fake and fabricated. The copies of adangals for the faslis 1417 to 1422, filed along with the writ petition were also fabricated. Just prior to his retirement, he signed the report on 18.05.2020. There is no report, said to have been communicated by the then Tahsildar, available in the office of RDO and hence, report vide Ref.No.A/65/2020 is fake and fabricated. The copies of adangals for the faslis 1417 to 1422, filed along with the writ petition were also fabricated. The deponent got issued notice to Village Revenue Officer (VRO), Ponnampalle, who in turn submitted explanation stating that he is regular VRO for Thorrivemula village and K.V. Sivaramaiah, retired Tahsildar issued oral orders keeping him incharge for Ponnampalle village. The then Tahsildar handed over RSR, adangals, 1(B) and faslis 1426 and 1427 to said VRO, on 23.04.2019 and old manual adangals were kept in record room. The then retired Tahsildar, Mylavaram not only resorted to illegal activities but also committed several illegal entries. Based on the news published in local newspaper and on verification of records, it came to light that K.V. Sivaramaiah, retired Tahsildar of Mylavaram Mandal, committed illegalities and irregularities. A criminal case, vide FIR No.59/2021 was registered against retired Tahsildar, K.V. Sivaramaiah, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 477(a) read with 34 of IPC. Departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991, for violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. c) Petitioners never cultivated lands and they are not residents of Ponnampalle village. The names of the petitioners are not found in the voter's list of the village. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The District Collector i.e. respondent No.2 filed separate counter affidavit. It was contended that, as seen from survey record, no sub-divisions were made in the subject survey numbers. Ac.50.85 cents, 78.40 cents and 343.74 cents of land in survey Nos.192, 209 and 244 respectively of Ponnampalli village were identified for alienation in favour of requisition department. By following the procedure, the then District Collector issued directions to handover the subject lands to the District Manager, NRDCAP, Kadapa vide proceedings No.Ref.No.E1/2156/2015 dated 03.09.2016. Accordingly, the then Tahsildar handed over advance possession of the subject lands on 03.09.2016. Thereafter, Solar Power Plant was established over the lands in question. None of the petitioners raised objections, when lands were handed over to the Manager, NRDCAP. Accordingly, the then Tahsildar handed over advance possession of the subject lands on 03.09.2016. Thereafter, Solar Power Plant was established over the lands in question. None of the petitioners raised objections, when lands were handed over to the Manager, NRDCAP. On verification of the adangals for fasli 1417 and 1422, filed along with the writ petition, it is found that they were tampered. The report of the then Tahsildar vide reference A/65/2020 dated 18.05.2020 is neither available in Tahsildar's office or RDO's office. Criminal case was registered against K.V. Sivaramaiah, the then Tahsildar. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri R.S.Sumith Raj, learned counsel representing Sri P. Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit. 7. Learned Government Pleader, Revenue, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavits. 8. Before going into the facts of the case, it is apt to have a look at G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 14.09.2012, which deals with government land allotment policy. Clause No.(v) of G.O., which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: "As regards the sivai jamedars, who have been cultivating the land for a long period, without D-Form Patta and whose possession is confirmed by entries in 10(1) and adangal accounts may be paid ex gratia without solatium as follows: 9. All the petitioners asserted cultivation of lands, respective extents of land in survey Nos.192, 209 and 244, as stated supra. Based on the above G.O., petitioners are claiming ex-gratia, in the capacity of Sivoijamadars. 10. It is pertinent to have a look at BSO 15 (II) (2) (iii) speaks about "Sivoijamadar", which reads thus: " Sivoijamadar" for the purpose of consideration of the claim for assignment of land, "Sivoijamadar" is one who has been in occupation of the land at the time of consideration for its assignment provided he had been in continuous occupation of the land from the fasli immediately preceding the one in which the assignment is considered." 11. Thus, to claim the status of Sivoijamadar, one should be in possession/occupation of land at the time of consideration for its assignment. 12. The case at hand according to the counter affidavit of the District Collector possession was handed over in the year 2016. 13. Thus, to claim the status of Sivoijamadar, one should be in possession/occupation of land at the time of consideration for its assignment. 12. The case at hand according to the counter affidavit of the District Collector possession was handed over in the year 2016. 13. This Court verified copies of adangals for faslis 1417 to 1422 filed along with the writ petition. A perusal of the copies of adangals would disclose that the names of the petitioners are recorded as pattadar in column No.12 and as encroacher in column No.13. However, petitioners are not claiming the property as pattadar. They are claiming the property as encroachers. Reflecting the names of the petitioners in column No.12 as pattadars, itself, creates any amount of doubt regarding genuineness of copies of adangals filed along with the writ petition. However, the copies filed along with the writ petition are generated from the office of the Tahsildar, concerned under Right to Information Act. 14. Apart from the above, learned Government Pleader produced the original adangal books for fasli 1417 to 1422. A perusal of the original record discloses that six pages adangals were stitched in between the pages. The original adangal copies contain date of printing. However, the copies stitched, which were inserted in the book, do not contain such date. Of course, petitioners filed copies of adangals which do not contain the date. 15. The discrepancies pointed out supra qua the adangals filed by the petitioner on one hand and original adangals book produced by learned Government Pleader on the other hand, it being a disputed question of fact it requires evidence to be let in by the petitioners. In fact, it is a serious disputed question of fact. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally, shall not adjudicate disputed question of facts. 16. In Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 4 SCC 317 , it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been "considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 . In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been "considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 . " 17. In Dharam Dutt v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 1295 : (2004) 1 SCC 712 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined except on evidence are not fit to be taken up for-adjudication in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 18. The other dispute is with regard to Ex.P1, letter/report said to have been addressed by the then Tahsildar (retired), K.V. Sivaramaiah to the RDO. In the counter filed by the Tahsildar, it was specifically averred that except the signature of retired Tahsildar, it does not contain the signature of VRO and Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI). It was also specifically stated that K.V. Sivaramaiah retired on superannuation, on 31.06.2020. He alone signed the report on 18.05.2020. Of course, in the counter filed by District Collector, it was pointed out that report was not available either in the office of Tahsildar or in the office of RDO. However, it is a fact that criminal case was filed against K.V. Sivaramaiah regarding the irregularities committed by the officer, during his tenure as Tahsidlar in Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. This itself, shows that K.V. Sivaramaiah, the then Tahsildar committed irregularities during his tenure. 19. As discussed supra, petitioners' names are shown as pattadars and possessors in column Nos.12 and 13 respectively. Apart from that by date of handing over possession to the requisitioning department in the year 2016, as seen from the faslis, petitioners are not in possession. Unless the petitioners establish their possession over the subject lands as encroachers for fasli 1417 to 1422 (2008-2014) as pleaded by them, before the competent Civil Court, petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department, dated 14.09.2012. 20. For the reasons mentioned supra, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. For the reasons mentioned supra, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from approaching Civil Court to establish their possession for claiming the benefit under the G.O. referred to supra. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.