THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.22363 of 2010 Between:
1. Yeddula Suryanarayana Reddy, and another PETITIONERS AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary (Irrigation & CAD Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with regard to the lands admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents and Ac.6.00 cents situated in Sy.No.175 of Vemula Village and Mandal, Kadapa District and to pass an award and pay compensation to the petitioners.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development for respondents.
3. According to the petitioners, their father purchased lands admeasuring Ac. 5.00 cents and Ac.6.00 cents situated in Sy.No.175 of Vemula Village and Mandal, Kadapa District, under a registered sale deed vide document No.148 of 1963 dated 11.03.1963, for a valuable consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. It is their further case that in recognition of their right over the property, the Revenue authorities issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971. The Department of Irrigation, Government of A.P., took a decision to restore the abandoned Gantasala Tank near Gondipalle village, and accordingly took up the work for raising the bund. In view of completion of the said work, the lands in Sy.Nos.136/2, 144, 145/2, 145/3, 173/1, 175, 181 and 181/3 underwent submersion. According to the petitioners, despite a number of representations, no action has so far been taken by the respondents for initiation of proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, and for payment of compensation in their favour. Challenging the said action as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent Executive Engineer, stating that the land owners of the said survey numbers gave their written consent, stating that they do not have any objection for submergence of lands and would not claim any compensation from the Government for submerged lands. It is further stated in the counter that Sri Y Srinivasulu Reddy had also given written consent in respect of Sy.No.175 of Vemula Village. While saying so, the 5th respondent seeks to justify the action of the respondent-authorities in not paying compensation to the petitioners.
5. In the present writ petition, it is the categorical case of the petitioners that vide letter No.B/157/2009, dated 09.04.2010, Tahsildar, Vemula clearly informed the officer on Special Duty PADA, Pulivendula, with regard to the extents owned by the petitioners herein and their brother Sri Y. Srinivasulu Reddy, who alleged to have given willingness while expressing his consent for foregoing compensation amount. As per the said letter the 1st petitioner, viz., Y. Suryanarayana Reddy, owned Ac.5.00 and the 2nd petitioner owned Ac.6.00 respectively. Even as per the respondent-authorities, they did not obtain any consent from the petitioners herein.
6. On the directions of this Court, the learned Government Pleader has placed the relevant papers pertaining to the present proceedings including the proceedings pertaining to Sy.No.175 on record, which shows that Sri Y. Srinivasa Reddy had given consent for the land admeasuring Ac.14.00 cents in Sy.No.175 from out of Ac.16.00. The pattedar passbook standing in the name of Sri Y. Srinivasulu Reddy placed on record also clearly and manifestly shows that there is some correction made at page No.3 at column No.4 of the pattedar pass book with regard to the extent of the land. The said correction, which is visible for the naked eye, gives any amount of suspicion. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the title deeds issued by the Revenue authorities, standing in the name of the petitioners herein.
7. In view of these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that this issue needs ground verification and for which enquiry is required to be undertaken by the District Collector, Kadapa District.
8. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen shall be deprived his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an exproprietary legislation, which authorises and empowers the State to acquire the private property without reference to the consent of land owners. Therefore, the provisions of the said legislation are required to be adhered to and followed, scrupulously and meticulously and any deviation from the mandatory provisions of the said legislation would render the proceedings invalid.
9. In the instant case, the authorities are justifying their action in not paying compensation on the ground that the brother of the petitioners expressed his consent for foregoing an extent of Ac.14.00 from out of Ac.16.00 in Sy.No.175 of Vemula Village. When the revenue records and the letter of the Tahsildar dated 09.04.2010 are in favour of the petitioners, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent-authorities in refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioners herein.
10. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent- District Collector, Kadapa, to hold an enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioners herein keeping in view the observations made in the preceding paragraphs and take appropriate action, and if it is found in the said enquiry that the petitioners herein are entitled for compensation for their lands, necessary proceedings should be initiated for payment of compensation in favour of the petitioners after giving notice and opportunity of being heard. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, W.P.M.Ps., if any shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
28th April, 2014 Js.