HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.6279 of 2013 Date : 8-12-2014 Between :
Karnaputi Narayana ..
Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Irrigation Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following:
ORDER:
At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from an extent of Ac.3-17 cents in Sy.No726/1B of Itugullapadu village, Sri Avadoota Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District along with fruit bearing trees and other orchards, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claimed that he was a landless poor person; that therefore, he was assigned the above mentioned land in the year 1976; that he has levelled the land, made it fit for cultivation and dug two bore wells to a depth of 250 and 300 ft. respectively; and that he has raised 300 fruit bearing sweet orange trees, 200 neem trees, 15 teak trees and 2 soap net trees, apart from other miscellaneous trees on the boundaries of the land. The petitioner further averred that he was granted pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the said land. That a canal in the name of Sri Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Reservoir (SPVBR) Left Canal was dug in the year 2006-07 to a depth of about 40 to 50 ft. and a width of 500 ft. over an extent of Ac.2-05 cents. That two bore wells were also situated in the canal alignment and that due to the excavation of canal, the bore wells were dismantled, as a result of which all the orchards planted by the petitioner have withered away and that it is also not viable to cultivate the balance Ac.1-12 cents. The petitioner further averred that he came to be aware that in the letter dated 27-1-2007 addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, payment of compensation has been recommended; and that several representations made to the respondents by him went in vain. That on 21-3-2011, respondent No.3 has issued letter to the petitioner calling upon him to attend his office on 6-4- 2011 along with pattadar passbook, DKT patta etc; that he has appeared before respondent No.3 along with the record and that respondent No.3 has verified the documents produced by the petitioner and informed him that he will take steps for payment of compensation after obtaining approval from respondent No.2. As no compensation has been paid to him, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the fact that the petitioner has been assigned Ac.3-17 cents is not disputed. However, it is averred that out of the said extent, only Ac.2-05 cents was requisitioned and taken possession for excavation of the canal. It is further averred that as the petitioner claimed compensation for Ac.3-17 cents, he has not agreed to receive ex-gratia for the land admeasuring Ac.2-05 in Sy.No.736/1B, including tree values already ascertained.
Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner while fairly stating that his client can claim compensation to the extent of Ac.2-05 cents only, he has however submitted that as the plants over the entire extent of Ac.3-17 cents have withered away in view of damage to the two bore wells which were located over the canal alignment, his client is entitled to compensation for the loss of trees along with the market value of Ac.2-05 cents computed as per the Larger Bench Judgment of this Court i n Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Vs. Mekala Pandu and
[1]
others , which is confirmed by the Supreme Court by Judgment dated 4-8-2014 in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure
[2]
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Singh and others .
The learned Government Pleader while admitting that the Judgment in Mekala Pandu (1-supra) was confirmed by t h e Apex Court, however, submitted that the question whether the plants over the entire extent of Ac.3-17 cents have withered away on account of removal of the two bore wells or not, needs to be enquired into.
In Mekala Pandu (1-supra), a five Judge Bench of this Court, at para-109, held as under:
“In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.”
As admitted by the learned Government Pleader, this Judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its recent order referred to above.
In view of the dicta laid down by this Court in Mekala Pandu (1-supra), the petitioner is entitled to compensation as payable to the owner of the any land acquired under the Act along with all the benefits under the provisions of the said Act.
With regard to the trees, while the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation only in respect of the trees which were located over Ac.2-05 cents of land, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the plants situated on the either side of the canal over the balance land have also withered away. This aspect needs to be enquired into by the respondents.
The learned Government Pleader requested for reasonable time for holding an enquiry and payment of compensation as per the Judgment of this Court in Mekala Pandu (1-supra).
In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.3 to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-05 cents treating the same as having been acquired under the provisions of the Act. He shall hold a detailed enquiry on the claim of the petitioner regarding the compensation payable to the trees over the part of the land acquired. He shall also enquire into the claim of the petitioner that two bore wells were also removed in the canal excavation, as a result of which the plants over the land which were outside the acquired land have also withered away. Respondent No.3 shall complete the exercise within a period of three months and pay the compensation to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, he is entitled to file a civil suit.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.7839 of 2013 and WVMP No.1753 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-12-2014 AM
[1] (2004(2) ALD 451 (FB)
[2] C.A.Nos.7904-7912 of 2012, dated 4-8-2014