Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 277 (AP)

Madde Sridevi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2021-04-26

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2021
ORDER : The relief sought in this Writ Petition is “to issue Writ or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus holding the action of the respondents in paying only exgratia to the petitioners lands alone and without paying compensation for trees and wells, as illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners lands, trees and wells situated in Rapur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in terms of larger bench judgment passed in Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Domalguda vs. Mekala Pandu and others reported in 2004(2) ALD 451 and as affirmed by Apex Court vide order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012.” 2. All the petitioners were assigned different extents of lands in S.Nos.1008, 1009, 1010/3,4,1033 and 1034 of Rapur Village. They were all predominantly agricultural lands. 3. For the purpose of Reach No.2 of Rapur Balancing Reservoir, on a request by the then Executive Engineer, SSLC project, Division-2, Nellore, in all an extent of Ac.105-28 cents in different S.Nos. including one referred to above of Rapur Village were acquired. Out of this Ac.105-28 cents, Ac.15-70 cents is Patta land, Ac.86.23 is DKT land and Ac.3-35 cents is Government land. An extent of Ac.40-45 cents of DKT land was resumed to Government by the then Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Atmakuru, Nellore District vide Rc.B.24/2012 dated 21.02.2013. 4. Pursuant to this acquisition, market value was fixed including for the assigned lands or DKT lands on par with patta lands along with solatium at 30%. Thus, exgratia was paid to all these ousters including the petitioners. These details are furnished in the tabulated statement hereunder: Sl. No. Name of the pattadar Sy.No. Extent F.Dis. No. & Date Classification M.V. per-acre Land value 30% solatiumon land Total exgratia 1. Madde Sridevi, W/o. Rathnaiah 1010/3 2.00 117/146 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 2. Gorla Ramamma, W/o.Venkata Ramanaiah 1010/3 1.00 313/1416 18.11.06 Dry 205000 205000 61500 266500 3. Nagalla Manoharamma, W/o.Penchala Subbaiah 1010/3 0.50 151/1417 Dry 205000 102500 30750 133250 4. Madde Lakshmamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu 1008 2.00 22/1416 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 5. Gorla Subbamma 1034 2.00 176/1417 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 6. Adwanapu Sampurnamma, W/o. Krishnaiah 1034 2-00 274/1416 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 7. Gorla Rathnamma,W/o. Penchala Narasaiah 1033 1.00 150/1417 10.01.08 Dry 205000 205000 61500 266500 8. Madde Lakshmamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu 1008 2.00 22/1416 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 5. Gorla Subbamma 1034 2.00 176/1417 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 6. Adwanapu Sampurnamma, W/o. Krishnaiah 1034 2-00 274/1416 11.11.06 Dry 205000 410000 123000 533000 7. Gorla Rathnamma,W/o. Penchala Narasaiah 1033 1.00 150/1417 10.01.08 Dry 205000 205000 61500 266500 8. Gorla Krishnamma, W/o. Penchalaiah 1033 1.00 149/1417 10.01.08 Dry 205000 205000 61500 266500 9. Mattem Rathnamma, W/o. Markandeyulu 1033 1.00 152/1417 10.01.08 Dry 205000 205000 61500 266500 10. Kothapu chinaRamaiah, S/o.Penchalaiah 1009 2.00 140/1407 20.04.06 Dry 235000 470000 141000 611000 11. Chilaka Lalithamma, W/o. Raghava Reddy 1001/4 2.48 1996/79 25.10.70 Dry 205000 508400 152520 660920 12. Chilaka Lakshmi Narasa Reddy, S/o.Sundar Rami Reddy 1012 5.05 1991/70 25.10.70 Dry 235000 1186750 356025 1542775 13. Rapuru Ankaiah, Son of Venkata Ramaiah 1010/2 1001/5 2.00 1.53 1989/79 25.10.70 Dry 205000 205000 410000 313650 123000 94095 533000 407745 14. Molakala Sankaraiah, son of Sankaraiah 1010/1 3303 194 1985/79 25.10.70 Dry 205000 621150 186345 807495 5. The petitioners have received this exgratia so awarded. 6. Now, the contention of the petitioners is that, in view of the judgment of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella at Domalguda vs. Mekala Pandu and others, 2004(2) ALD 451 , which was confirmed in Civil Appeals Nos.7904-7912 of 2012 by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.08.2014, they are entitled for all the consequential benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 7. The petitioners also contended that the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 21.06.2016 directing payment of compensation whenever assigned lands are acquired on par with patta lands, as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners requested to direct payment of compensation for the land, trees, wells and structures and that paying only exgratia, is bad and illegal. 8. On behalf of the respondents, the then Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, SPSR Nellore District filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project is stated being the 2nd respondent. Obviously, this is not correct, in as much as the 2nd respondent in this Writ Petition is the Special collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore. In this counter affidavit, Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project is stated being the 2nd respondent. Obviously, this is not correct, in as much as the 2nd respondent in this Writ Petition is the Special collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore. It is not even stated in this counter affidavit by Sri M.L.Narasimham, who filed it, that he was incharge Special Collector of Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore. The manner in which this counter affidavit is appearing itself speaks of the attention bestowed in preparing it by all the concerned exposing rather pathetic state of affairs on the part of every one concerned to its preparation and filing. 9. Nonetheless, the objections of the respondents through this counter affidavit in this writ petition are now referred to. 10. Acquisition of the lands for the purpose of Reach No.2 of Rapur Balancing Reservoir, determination of compensation payable thereon including for D.K.T.patta lands, payment thereof to 18 assignees including the petitioners herein as exgratia, are admitted. The specific contention of the respondents is that when exgratia was paid, there was no protest in respect thereof. A reference is also made that the Government did not want to pursue this project and directed Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Tirupathi to stop further proceedings. On account of involvement of certain stretches of forest lands, the excavation of the canal was directed to be stopped upto K.M.56, according to the respondents. They further contended that the subject lands are in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and therefore, their claim for payment of compensation is not tenable. The respondents also disputed and resisted the claim of the petitioners including for grant of compensation in terms of the judgment in Mekala Pandu. 11. In reply, the petitioners stated that the response of the respondents is not proper while denying that they are in possession and enjoyment of these lands and that no compensation was paid to the wells and tress existing on these lands. They further denied that they received the exgratia without raising any protest contending that they did not consent for the acquisition of these lands. They further denied that they received the exgratia without raising any protest contending that they did not consent for the acquisition of these lands. They also contended that the contractor to whom the work was entrusted excavated the canal through their lands and therefore, they are not available for them to enjoy, while admitting that the canal work was stopped after completing a major part of the same on account of the failure to secure various clearances. 12. Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, addressed arguments. 13. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation for the wells, trees etc. upon acquisition of their lands including the benefits in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. To what relief? POINT No.1: 14. The admitted fact situation is referred to above and the tabulated statement in para No.4 gives the entire picture in this regard including receipt of compensation as exgratia by the petitioners. 15. Apparently, while determining the extent of exgratia for these assigned lands acquired from the petitioners, the Special Deputy collector, Land Acquisition-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration the location of fruit bearing trees and the bore wells for the purpose of irrigation, in respect of certain lands treating them as garden lands and arrived at market value at Rs.2,35,000/-. The tabulated statement referred to above indicates this differentiation particularly with reference to the land acquired from petitioner No.10-Sri Kothapu China Ramaiah of Ac.2-00 and petitioner No.12-Chilaka Lakshmi Narasa Reddy of Ac.5-05 cents. The remaining extents of other petitioners were treated being dry lands, since they did not command similar facilities nor being garden lands with irrigation facilities. 16. This information is available from the letter filed by the petitioners as a part of material papers dated 22.02.2013 addressed by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Somasila Project, Atmakuru in Rc.B.24/2012 to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore (2nd respondent). 17. Therefore, when the material produced by the petitioners themselves is furnishing this information, they cannot now contend that their lands had structures, wells etc., in an attempt to boost up their claim for compensation. 18. 17. Therefore, when the material produced by the petitioners themselves is furnishing this information, they cannot now contend that their lands had structures, wells etc., in an attempt to boost up their claim for compensation. 18. Added to it, when an award with enquiry was conducted in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, these petitioners did not raise any objection nor protest in fixing up this market value nor seek a reference to the civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the said Act. Now by means of this writ petition they cannot indirectly make an attempt in this direction. What cannot be achieved directly cannot be done indirectly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners in this context has to be rejected. 19. In Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others vs. Mekala Pandu and others, AIR 2004 AP 250 with reference to assigned lands or DKT lands directing to treat them on par with regular patta lands for the purpose of awarding compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a 7-Member Bench of this Court when it was at Hyderabad observed in para 109 as under: “109. 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 the 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.” 20. 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.” 20. This judgment is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. Ramesh Singh & Others, dated 04.08.2014 subject to a rider that the observations in this Larger Bench Judgment about status of claimants as constitutional claimants are kept open to be considered in appropriate case. 21. It is clear from the material on record that other benefits which are consequential upon acquisition of the land and which are corollary were not given to the petitioners in the nature of additional market value under Section 23(1-A) and interest in terms of Section 28 of the said Act. 22. In this regard, one factor to bear in mind is stoppage of the excavation of the canal on account of the decision of the Government as stated in the counter affidavit. Stoppage of excavation of the canal is also admitted by the petitioners in their reply affidavit and on account of the failure of the Government to get various clearances for forest stretches through which the proposed canal should run through. Thus, the object and purpose of acquisition of the land has apparently remained standstill or rather paralysed. 23. On account of this reason, it appears the respondents have specifically contended in their counter that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of these lands. But the petitioners have denied it stating that the canal has been dug through their lands by the contractor. The petitioners being agriculturists cannot be expected to remain quiet. When the purpose of acquiring their lands has remained dormant and that they are not being put to use for the purposes for which they are intended to, finding their barren nature, the petitioners in all possibility and probability would have gone for cultivation of these lands. They are agriculturists who were cultivating and enjoying them prior to their acquisition. 24. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is desirable to direct the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Somasila Project, Atmakur, Nellore District to ernquire into these questions of fact while fixing up the benefits for additional market value in terms of Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 24. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is desirable to direct the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Somasila Project, Atmakur, Nellore District to ernquire into these questions of fact while fixing up the benefits for additional market value in terms of Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If the petitioners are in occupation of these lands cultivating and enjoying, if it is brought out through such enquiry now proposed, they cannot enrich themselves at the expense of the Government. In this process, deduction should be made for such unauthorised use and occupation of the petitioners from out of the amounts now being directed to be paid to them. In the process of such enquiry, in case the occupation of these acquired lands by the petitioners, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, is directed to take assistance of all the concerned including the Agriculture and Horticulture Officers for assessment of such damages for use and occupation. Thus, this point is answered. POINT No.2: 25. In view of the findings on point No.1, this Writ Petition has to be disposed of in accordance with the observations in point No.1. 26. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of subject to following terms: 1. The petitioners are entitled for additional market value and interest in terms of Section 23(1-A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 with reference to the respective extents acquired. 2. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Atmakur, Nellore District shall enquire into these aspects and determine the amounts payable to the petitioners thereon. 3. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Atmakur, Nellore District is further directed to enquire into the alleged unauthorised occupation and enjoyment of these lands by the petitioners, their cultivation and if any benefits or profits are enjoyed by them on account of such cultivation, assess, evaluate and arrive at their extent. 4. Upon assessing the benefits or profits derived by the petitioners from out of these lands, treating them being damages payable to the Government for such unauthorised use and occupation, the Special Deputy Collector shall deduct such amounts out of the amounts payable in view of clause (1) above and shall pay only the balance to the petitioners. 5. 4. Upon assessing the benefits or profits derived by the petitioners from out of these lands, treating them being damages payable to the Government for such unauthorised use and occupation, the Special Deputy Collector shall deduct such amounts out of the amounts payable in view of clause (1) above and shall pay only the balance to the petitioners. 5. This entire exercise should be completed by the Special Deputy Collector, Somasila Project, Atmakur, Nellore District within four (04) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. This order does not give rise to filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as protest by the petitioners and shall not enable to get this matter referred to the civil Court thereupon. 7. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.