Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 116 (AP)

Akkenapalli Sumander Reddy v. The Govt. of A. P.

2012-02-02

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : The petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of land in various survey numbers of Ramsagar and Kistampet Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District. It is stated that on a representation made by the residents of the surrounding villages, the Government has initiated steps for restoration of a tank known as ‘Polai Cheruvu’ as a Percolation Tank under a special programme. Survey is said to have been conducted to identify the land that would be effected, in the event of the tank being brought into existence. The petitioners contend that without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondents have brought into existence a tank and that their lands got sub-merged in it. 2. On an earlier occasion, they filed W.P.No.23974 of 2002, pleading that the action of the respondents in rendering their lands to be sub-merged without initiating the proceedings under the Act, is arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition was disposed of on 28.02.2006, directing the District Collector, Warangal, the 2nd respondent herein, to consider the representation that may be submitted by the petitioners. On a consideration of such representation, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 17.05.2006, stating that there existed a tank about 500 years ago at the concerned place, and that the steps taken by the Government are only in the nature of restoration of the tank. He observed that though the records show that the petitioners are the pattadars of the land, the fact that it was the tank bed of ‘Polai Cheruvu’, cannot be ignored. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17959 of 2006. This Court did not endorse the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. It was also observed that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- paid on earlier occasion is inadequate. The 2nd respondent was directed to re-consider the entire issue. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 26.08.2009. 3. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 23.12.2009, rejecting the case of the petitioners and observing that the compensation that was paid earlier is adequate. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The petitioners contend that the revenue records clearly demonstrate that the lands are held in patta by them and there is not even a trace of right of the Government, over the lands. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The petitioners contend that the revenue records clearly demonstrate that the lands are held in patta by them and there is not even a trace of right of the Government, over the lands. They submit that the lands owned by them can be taken by the Government, only after initiating the proceedings under the Act. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. Reference is made to the proceedings that have ensued earlier. It is stated that the petitioners were in occupation of tank bed land and such occupation does not confer any right of ownership. It is also stated that the restoration of tank is a public purpose and that there is no necessity for the Government, to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The 2nd respondent has also stated that the interests of the petitioners were already protected by paying ex-gratia @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. 6. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order runs contrary to the specific observations and directions made by this Court on two earlier occasions. He contends that the very fact that the lands were recorded as patta, in the names of the petitioners and that there is no entry anywhere in the revenue or irrigation records about the existence of tank, establishes that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the lands. He submits that when the law, as it stands, now mandates that the Government is under obligation to pay compensation, in the form of ex-gratia, even when the lands assigned to citizens are resumed, for public purpose, the petitioners cannot be treated on a lesser footing. He contends that the respondents are under obligation to initiate proceedings under the Act and to pay compensation as per law. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that though the records depict that the petitioners are pattadars of the lands in different survey numbers of the two villages, the undisputed fact is that the pattas are in respect of tank bed land. He contends that once the land is part of an irrigation tank, possession for any length of time, or the type of entries in the revenue records, will not change the character thereof. He submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. 8. He contends that once the land is part of an irrigation tank, possession for any length of time, or the type of entries in the revenue records, will not change the character thereof. He submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. 8. The petitioners are pattadars in respect of lands in various survey numbers of Ramsagar and Kistampet Villages. It is not in dispute that the tank was brought into existence by the Government, recently, over the said lands. It hardly needs any mention that whenever the lands held by a private individual are taken over by the Government for any public purpose, the compensation as provided for under the Act, must be paid. 9. The ground on which the respondents denied payment of compensation to the petitioners is that there existed an irrigation tank about 500 years ago, and since it breached, the tank bed was being used for cultivation by many individuals. In case the records disclose the existence of such tank, exercise of rights of cultivation for any length of time by individuals does not alter the classification. It is also settled principle of law that if an irrigation tank existed and mentioned as such in the records maintained by the Irrigation or Revenue Department, the persons cultivating the bed of such tank do not derive any rights, nor can they prevent the storage of water in it. If, however, the records do not disclose the existence of tank, at all the rights of private individuals cannot be adversely effected by the Government, in the process of forming a tank. 10. When the petitioners approached this Court at the first instance, the 2nd respondent was directed to examine the matter in detail. Being the Head of the Revenue Department in the District, the 2nd respondent was supposed to verify the records maintained by his Department or those maintained by the Irrigation Department. However, in forming an opinion on this aspect, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 17.05.2006, observing inter alia as under:. “… On verification of Revenue Records, it is found that the lands are shown as patta lands. In the Village maps pertaining to Ramsagar and Kistampet are also verified and found that there is no mention of existing of any tank in the Villages. “… On verification of Revenue Records, it is found that the lands are shown as patta lands. In the Village maps pertaining to Ramsagar and Kistampet are also verified and found that there is no mention of existing of any tank in the Villages. However, the record shows the status of the land for the past fifty to seventy years only. Hence, the history of the villagers of Ramsagar and Kistampet have been verified in the light of physical existence of a bund covering Ac.104.20 gts., and breached at many places. History says that Polai cheru is an ancient tank formed during the Kakatiya Dynasty and was breached during the rule of Pllava Raju. Thus, the said tank is approximately 500 years old. …” 11. From a perusal of this, two aspects become clear; a) The revenue records demonstrate that the lands are shown as patta lands and that there is no mention as to the existence of tank in the two villages; and b) any reasonable exercise of the discretion or power ought to have led to a conclusion that the lands owned by any pattadar can be taken over only by paying compensation. The 2nd respondent, however, imported his knowledge in history and took the view that there existed a tank, when the area was ruled by Kakatiya Dynasty, but was breached under Pallava Rajus’ rule. There cannot be any better instance of improper and lopsided exercise of power, than this. Absolute rights vested in citizens, cannot be trampled in such a manner on the basis of such farfetched presumption. 12. Even if the understanding or knowledge of the offer was correct, he was required to be guided by the entries in the records. When the order, dated 17.05.2006, was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.17959 of 2006, it was observed that the amount paid to the petitioners in the form of ex-gratia is inadequate and the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the matter. Unfortunately, another incumbent, who held the Office of the 2nd respondent, just ignored the observation made by this Court. According to him, the ex-gratia of Rs.15,000/-, per acre, was adequate. This is nothing short of nullifying the orders of this Court. The stand taken by different incumbents from time to time that held the Office of the 2nd respondent is reprehensible. According to him, the ex-gratia of Rs.15,000/-, per acre, was adequate. This is nothing short of nullifying the orders of this Court. The stand taken by different incumbents from time to time that held the Office of the 2nd respondent is reprehensible. Instead of being a source of emulation for other officials in the District, they have acted on the basis of their personal knowledge or views, going to the extent of ignoring the records maintained by their own department and treating the direction issued by this Court, as of no consequence. The petitioners have been subjected to prolonged and unnecessary litigation. 13. There is another angle from which the matter can be examined. It is not uncommon that the Government assigns its land to various persons, mostly landless poor. Irrespective of the length of time for which the assigned land was under the enjoyment of the assignee, ex-gratia is payable to him in the event of land being resumed to the Government for public purpose. Even if the land was resumed to the Government within two years from the date of assignment, the ex-gratia which is almost equivalent to market value, has to be paid, as though he is the absolute owner of the property for decades together. When such is the requirement under law, the petitioners, who are pattadars and absolute owners of the land, for decades together, cannot be denied the compensation. 14. In the ordinary course of things, the respondents must be required to initiate proceedings under the Act and take further steps in accordance with law. However, this Court feels that the procedure under the Act can be dispensed with, in view of certain special circumstances that exist in this case. The first is that the Government made an attempt to restore the tank, which existed in ancient times. The second is that an amount of Rs.15,000/-per acre was paid to the effected persons in the year 2003. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court found that the amount that was already paid is inadequate. The publication of notification at this length of time would lead to several complications. Thirdly, in the recent past, there was sudden and unforeseen escalation of prices and an award, if at all, is to be passed on the basis of the existing market value. The publication of notification at this length of time would lead to several complications. Thirdly, in the recent past, there was sudden and unforeseen escalation of prices and an award, if at all, is to be passed on the basis of the existing market value. In such a case, the Government may even be compelled to take a decision to abandon the tank, sacrificing the interests of the citizens in the locality, than to incur huge expenditure. 15. According to the petitioners, the market value of their land in the year 2002 was in the range of Rs.50,000/- per acre. Even if it is to be taken as Rs.45,000/-, they received Rs.15,000/- per acre and the balance is only Rs.30,000/-. If the escalation at 10% per year is taken into account, there would be 90% increase on Rs.30,000/-. Since the petitioners are being denied the benefit of solatium, additional market value and interest, it is felt that they can be paid compensation/damages at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. 16. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.60.000/-per acre to the petitioners. If the amount is paid within four months from today, it shall not carry any interest. In default, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date on which the amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre was paid. There shall be no order as to costs.