THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.25344 of 2008 Between:
R. Nagappa PETITIONER AND
1. The District Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy, Medak, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in constructing Z.P. High School in the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.843/oo, Dommata Village, Dowltabad Mandal, Medak District, without initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Education for respondent No.4, and Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.02 gts., in Sy.No.843/oo, Dommata Village, Dowltabad Mandal, Medak District. All the revenue records, like Pahanies, show the name of the petitioner as owner. It is also the case of the petitioner that the revenue authorities issued pattedar passbooks in his favour. It is averred that the entire family of the petitioner was residing at Zaheerabad and when the petitioner visited the village in the year 2006 to start agricultural works, he found a big building with ground + 1st floor in the name and style of Z.P. High School, Dommata and a very big compound wall covering his entire land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Zilla Parishad authorities have taken possession of the property of the petitioner without recourse to law and without initiating any proceedings under the Act. It is also stated that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for redressal of his grievance, but till today no response is forthcoming. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 19.11.2008. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Dowltabad Mandal, Medak District, and the 4th respondent-District Educational Officer, Medak have filed counter affidavits, admitting the petitioner’s ownership in respect of the said land. The counters also state that a high school building is existing in the petitioner’s land and they neither accorded permission nor handed over possession to any department. No counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th and 6th respondents denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5. It is settled and well established proposition of law that right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300- A of the constitution of India, which in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his/her property except by the procedure established by law.
6. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner has been taken without paying any compensation to him and in contravention of the said constitutional mandate. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in Chinnari Jagga Rao v. District Collector[1] wherein this Court at paragraphs 7 and 8 held as under.
“7. The entire facts present a disquieting picture. The private land belonging to the petitioners was handed over to the tribals as far back as 1990 and the respondents have done precious little except indulging in fruitless correspondence on the issue of compensating the petitioners for depriving them of their property. Having not responded for as long as 8 years in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, the above mentioned counter-affidavit has been filed, which shows the distinct lack of sensitivity and responsibility on the part of the respondents in remedying the injustice caused to the petitioners by paying compensation at least at this belated stage. Having considered letter, dated 24.07.2008 addressed by respondent No.3 to the Project Officer ITDA, Parvathipuram, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the entire land of an extent of Acs.18.20 cents belonging to the petitioners was taken by the respondents and utilized both for agricultural and house-site purposes on the decision taken at the village where clashes between tribals and non-tribals took place during the year 1990, albeit, without a written order.
8. The reason given in the counter affidavit that due to lack of funds, compensation could not be paid to the petitioners in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.01 cents can never be appreciated coming as it did from the State functionary. It is the bounden duty of the State to compensate its citizens for the property acquired by it, lest its action will fall foul of the constitutional mandate under Article 31-A and 300-A of the constitution of India. The action of the respondents in utilizing the lands of the petitioners for more than 18 years is thus, wholly without the authority of law and in the teeth of the constitutional provisions, which protect the citizens from being deprived of the property otherwise than by following due process of law and without being paid compensation which shall be not less than the market value. If the Act does not provide for acquisition of land for the purpose of agriculture, it is land for the purpose of agriculture, it is incumbent upon the respondents to find other ways and means to take over the land of the petitioners by paying them adequate and appropriate compensation. It is a matter of grave concern that the respondents, who are at the helm of the affairs of the State, have failed to show the required sensitivity to the just demand of the citizens that they be paid compensation for the property taken over from them.”
7. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the nature of the controversy in the present writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to take immediate steps for payment of compensation to the petitioner by pressing into service the relevant provisions of the legislation, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
22nd July, 2014 Js.
[1] 2008 (6) ALT 479