Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 807 (AP)

Bolisetty Satyanarayana v. State of A. P.

2020-12-14

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, D.RAMESH

body2020
ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The present Writ Petition, in the form of Public Interest Litigation, came to be filed by one Bolisetty Satyanarayana, who claims to be a well known Environmentalist and Social Activist. He also claims to be a National Convener of Jal Biradari, an organization formed for protection of water bodies in India. 2. The Writ Petitioner, in this present Public Interest Litigation, seeks issuance of Mandamus to declare the Gazette Notification No. 310 of Kadapa District, dated 16.10.2007, issued under 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as null and void. 3. The averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, show that, in the year 2007, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed construction of Gandikota Reservoir, which is a part of Galeru-Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, with an estimated storage of flood water to an extent of 26.85 T.M.C., from Krishna River through foreshore area of Srisailam Reservoir, so as to provide irrigation and drinking water facilities to the people in drought hit Kadapa and Chittoor districts. The agitation by the affected villagers in not issuing R&R package lead to filing of a Writ Petition (PIL) No. 183 of 2020. In the said Writ Petition, interim order came to be passed, stating that 'pendency of this writ petition will not prevent the respondents in proceeding with disbursement of the sanctioned amount. However, at the same time, respondents were directed to maintain status quo'. 4. While things stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh intended to implement the Gandikota Reservoir Phase-II and III and accordingly issued G.O.Rt. No. 323, dated 24.06.2020, for release of an amount of Rs. 522.85 Crores to the seven effected villages of Kondapuram Mandal of YSR Kadapa District viz., Thalla Proddutur, Chamaluru, Yerragudi, P. Anantha Puram, Yeturu, Regadi Palli and K. Sugumanchi Palli. The II and III Phase of project are part and parcel of Galeru-Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Phase-I for supply of drinking and irrigation water to the Rayalaseema region. 5. Insofar as G.O.Rt. No. 323, dated 24.06.2020, is concerned, it is said that, the administration of Kadapa District, in a high-handed manner are forcing the people of Talla Prodduturu Village to leave the said villages, failing which, threatened to file cases against them. 6. 5. Insofar as G.O.Rt. No. 323, dated 24.06.2020, is concerned, it is said that, the administration of Kadapa District, in a high-handed manner are forcing the people of Talla Prodduturu Village to leave the said villages, failing which, threatened to file cases against them. 6. While things stood thus, a Notification, under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be issued on 16.10.2007, vide Gazette Notification No. 310, for acquisition of lands under Gandikota Reservoir Project Phase-I and II. It is said that, the said notification will not apply to the case on hand, since 10 years have lapsed and no payment are made to the displaced persons. In other words, the grievance appears to be that, without paying any compensation and without providing any rehabilitation, the Respondents are forcing the villagers to leave the place. It is further pleaded in the affidavit that, the notification is hit by Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, as the villagers are still in possession and doing cultivation in their lands. 7. Having regard to the above, the villagers of Talla Proddutur made representations to 6th Respondent on 28.07.2020 and 07.08.2020, with reference to the payment of award amount under the earlier Gazette Notification and compensation amount for rehabilitation. But, without hearing the villagers and without providing any amenities of R&R, the district administration high-handedly evicted them, which is in total violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. 8. It is further averred that, about 10 days prior, the district administration let the Krishna flooded water into Gandikota Reservoir, leading the villages of Kondapuram Mandal getting inundated in the reservoir water and the harvested crop was destroyed, apart from men and cattle left in living, in the said waters. However, the agitation by the villagers led to stoppage of release of flood water into the reservoir. Having regard to the above, various reliefs are sought in the Writ Petition, which is filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation. 9. A Counter came to be filed on behalf of 2nd, 6th and 8th Respondents, denying the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition, except those that are specifically admitted therein. (i). Having regard to the above, various reliefs are sought in the Writ Petition, which is filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation. 9. A Counter came to be filed on behalf of 2nd, 6th and 8th Respondents, denying the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition, except those that are specifically admitted therein. (i). It is stated, in the counter filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District, to the effect that, as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Awards came to be passed, vide Award No. 73/2009-10 and 06/2011 etc., by 2012 itself. All payments due to eligible beneficiaries were made duly taking acquaintances from them. It is also stated that, all the Awards passed were consent awards. (ii). It is further stated that, not only acquisition of land and structures of Thallalproddatur village was completed before 2012 prior to new Land Acquisition Act, 2013, came into force, but, also possession was handed over to the EE, GNSS, Kadapa, in the year 2012. (iii). Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) are not applicable to the present case, since, no possession was taken, has no legs to stand. (iv). The Gazette Notification No. 310 shows that, the acquisition was completed prior to 2010 and all payments were made duly obtaining the acquaintances on 03.07.2011 and 28.09.2011, vide Award No. 5/2011-12; Award No. 6/2011-12, dated 08.07.2011; Award No. 7/2011-12; Award No. 8/2011-12. The Consent Awards were passed vide Award No. 95/2008-09, dated 16.07.2008; 29/89/2008-09, dated 16.07.2008; 90/2008-09, dated 01.07.2008 etc., and as stated earlier, possession was handed over to EE, GNSS, Kadapa, in the year 2012 itself. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that, without payment of compensation and providing rehabilitation, demanding the people to leave the place, is not correct and baseless. (v). The same analogy came to be applied insofar as the argument that acquisition of land is lapsed and hit by Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. (vi). Insofar as the representations made by the villagers of Thallaproddatur village is concerned, it is stated that, Government determines the package to various projects basing on geographical conditions, gestation period of the project, number of OTS & R&R opted PDFs. (vi). Insofar as the representations made by the villagers of Thallaproddatur village is concerned, it is stated that, Government determines the package to various projects basing on geographical conditions, gestation period of the project, number of OTS & R&R opted PDFs. As per the counter, it is stated that, prior to 2013 Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms. No. 68, dated 08.04.2005, announcing a package to the displaced families. As per the package, each displaced family will be paid Rs. 1.86 lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs. 6.75 lakhs per OTS opted PDFs and Rs. 3.75 lakhs to R&R opted PDFs in the year 2017, vide G.O.Rt. No. 4, dated 04.01.2017. It is stated that, the displaced families are now paid Rs. 10.00 lakhs per OTS opted PDFs and Rs. 7.00 lakhs per R&R opted PDFs, vide G.O.Rt. No. 323, dated 24.06.2020. Though, the package is not under any statutory obligation, but, the Government as a policy decision is paying the amount to support the displaced families financially. It is stated that, out of 2869 PDFs in Thallaproddatur Village, so far 2544 PDFs have been already paid R&R and OTS packages, which were duly acknowledged in the form of affidavits and thereafter, vacated the houses to facilitate impounding of reservoir. An amount of Rs. 217.08 crores was said to have been spent. The payments to remaining 325 PDFs is pending due to mismatching of names, death cases, legal heir cases etc., which will also be sorted out at the earliest. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that, the contention of the Petitioner that no amount is paid, is incorrect. Hence, pleads for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. Though, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a communication, dated 04.09.2020, between the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu Division and Project Administrator and Joint Collector, YSR Kadapa District, to the effect that, amounts are not being paid, but, the same, in our view, is not correct, as the said communication shows that, 72 PDFs who opted for compensation under OTS category and 71 PDFs, who opted for compensation under R&R category have given their consent to receive an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and Rs. 7.00 lakhs, respectively. Hence, an amount of Rs. 12,17,00,000/- is required for payment to 143 PDFs of Thallaproddatur village. 10.00 lakhs and Rs. 7.00 lakhs, respectively. Hence, an amount of Rs. 12,17,00,000/- is required for payment to 143 PDFs of Thallaproddatur village. The same fact is also reflected in the counter stating that the Government has enhanced payment to the displaced families from Rs. 6.75 lakhs and Rs. 3.75 lakhs under OTS opted PDFs and R&R opted PDFs to Rs. 10.00 lakhs and Rs. 7.00 lakhs. The said amounts have been paid to about 2544 PDFs as against 2869 PDFs in Thallaproddatur village. Pursuant thereto, affidavits were given voluntarily, wherein, the villagers voluntarily agreed to vacate the houses for impounding the reservoir. 11. No reply came to be filed disputing the averments made in the counter filed by the Respondents. Having regard to the averments made in the counter, which remained un-rebutted, and on a perusal of the material, it would clearly indicate that Awards as well as Consent Awards are passed much prior to Act 2013 came into force. The plea of the Petitioner that no compensation has been paid and no possession has been taken, may not be correct, more so, when the material on record show that, after taking possession, the work towards the reservoir has commenced. 12. Since, the amounts have already been paid to the aggrieved persons, who have voluntarily vacated the premises, none of them have approached this court, except the Petitioner, who is a public spirited individual. In a case of this nature, if really substantial injustice is caused to them, definitely, the aggrieved persons would have approached this court. 13. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal 1987 AIR 1109 : 1987 SCR (2) 223, [1987] SCC 295 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion.... Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. They must be above suspicion.... Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to taken upon themselves administrative and executive functions... I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." 14. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out that, "the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. The Court has also left the following note of caution: “But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." 15. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that, every effort is being made through the persons who have nothing to do with the village or the lands or structures in the village to create a litigation and claim money from the Government. Be that as it may, in our view, all the Awards were passed prior to the new Act coming into force and physical possession was taken and handed over to Executive Engineer, GNSS, Kadapa, much prior to 2013, which is evident from the record. Hence, the request of the Petitioner, in this Public Interest Litigation, in our view, cannot be accepted. 16. Hence, the request of the Petitioner, in this Public Interest Litigation, in our view, cannot be accepted. 16. Viewed from any angle, we see no grounds to grant the relief, as sought for by the Petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.