IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1767 OF 2008 DATED: 15-04-2014 Between:
The District Collector, Vizianagaram and others … Appellants And Chinnari Jagga Rao and others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1767 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-07-2008, by which His Lordship has been pleased to grant relief to the writ petitioners/respondents.
2. The writ petition was filed for the following relief:
“Issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating proceedings for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners over to an extent of Ac.18.40 cents in Sy.No.24 to 34 in Peddavalsa @ Gadabavalasam in Pedamarangi revenue village of Giyyamavalasa Mandal, Vijayanagaram District as illegal, arbitrary, ultravirus, unconstitutional and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.”
3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the writ petitioners is that they were owners of the aforesaid extent of land and the possession thereof was taken by the respondents in order to rehabilitate tribal people. Out of this, a small portion was allotted to tribal people for construction of a housing colony. It is the grievance of the petitioners that without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying any compensation, they were deprived of the ownership of the aforesaid land.
4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the affidavit averments and counter-affidavits filed in the said writ petition, found that without initiating acquisition proceedings the possession of the entire land was taken by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid fact finding, the learned trial Judge granted compensation for the damage done by taking over possession of the aforesaid land and the damage was quantified at Rs.90,000/- per acre. The learned trial Judge found that the respondents had agreed to pay the aforesaid rate in respect of the extent of Ac.2.01 cents out of Ac.18.20 cents of land. The learned trial Judge was of the view that since the compensation at the aforesaid rate was agreed to be paid by the respondents in respect of a portion of the same land, therefore, the same rate should be made applicable to the remaining extent of the land.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no document to hold that the Government has taken possession of the entire land and the document relied on by the learned trial Judge is not correctly applied. We have read the documents in the context of the dispute raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. We have no doubt in our mind that the learned Judge has correctly read the contents thereof and found that the possession of the entire land was taken by the respondents and there is no dispute that no land acquisition proceedings were initiated nor any legal proceedings were resorted to for taking possession of the land. Under the circumstances, we uphold the finding of the learned trial Judge in this regard.
6. The learned trial Judge has granted compensation at the rate agreed to in respect of a portion of the land. When the compensation for a portion of the same land was agreed to be paid at that rate, the learned trial Judge rightly granted compensation at the same rate in respect of the remaining extent of the land. We do not find any irregularity in granting such compensation. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial Judge.
7. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15-04-2014 Svv