Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1456 (AP)

L. Nanda Kumar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-12-13

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.......to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning Ac. 6-48 cents of land in Sy. No. 518 and 520, situated in Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh to me, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to forthwith return the aforesaid land or in the alternative acquire the aforesaid land and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the aforesaid land even after completion of the Tungabhadra Project and pass such other order or orders.....” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s uncle is the owner of a huge extent of land in Anantapur District. He, along with his family members, surrendered about Ac. 600 of land under the Agricultural Land Ceiling Act to the Government. In respect of an extent of Ac. 14-57 cents of land (Ac. 10-00 cents in Sy. No. 518, Ac. 3-53 cents in Sy. No. 520 A3 and Ac. 1-04 cents in Sy. No. 520C) situated in Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, owned by him, he being a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a public-spirited person and with a view to ensure that the Tungabhadra Project is completed at a swift pace to avoid any delays in land acquisition proceedings, he offered to handover, free of cost, the aforesaid Ac. 14-57 cents of land to the Tungabhadra Project High-Level Canal Division (TBPHLC Division) for construction of temporary and semi-permanent offices and residential buildings, petrol/diesel bunk, inspection bungalow, etc., on the condition that the aforesaid lands should be returned after the completion of the Project. Then, the Irrigation Department agreed to the said understanding, in the year 1967, then Sri L. Chinnappa Reddy handed over the said extent of Ac. 14-57 cents to the 4th respondent. In fact, in accordance with the said understanding, an extent of Ac. 5-59 cents (Ac. 4-60 cents in Sy. No. 518, Ac. 1-04 cents in Sy. Then, the Irrigation Department agreed to the said understanding, in the year 1967, then Sri L. Chinnappa Reddy handed over the said extent of Ac. 14-57 cents to the 4th respondent. In fact, in accordance with the said understanding, an extent of Ac. 5-59 cents (Ac. 4-60 cents in Sy. No. 518, Ac. 1-04 cents in Sy. No. 520 A3 and Ac. 0-95 cents in Sy. No. 520 C) from out of the aforesaid total extent of Ac. 14-57 cents was returned to L. Chinnappa Reddy, in the year 1978. 3. As the matter stood thus, L. Chinnappa Reddy and his wife, L. Syamalamma executed a Will dated 14.11.1980, registered as Document No. 35 of 1980. As per the said Will, life interest over all the properties including the aforesaid Ac. 14-57 cents of land was created in favour of L. Syamalamma and the reminder was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. As L. Chinnappa Reddy and his wife L. Syamalamma died in the years 1981 and 2015, respectively by virtue of the aforesaid will, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the aforesaid land apart from other properties as per the will. Though the project work was completed long back, the balance extent of Ac. 9-98 cents was not handed over as promised. Therefore, the petitioner, along with L. Syamalamma submitted a representation dated 23.02.2013 to the 4th respondent seeking redelivery/return of Ac. 8-98 cents of land (Ac. 6-40 cents in Sy. No. 518B and Ac. 2-58 cents in Sy. No. 520A1). 4. On receipt of the said representation, the 4th respondent addressed Letter No. 614M, dated 08.04.2013, to the 6th respondent, categorically stating that Ac. 114-57 cents of land was handed over in the year 1967 to TBPHLC Division for construction of buildings, that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Anantapur declared those lands as non-agricultural lands which were given to public works department for HLC Colony, free of cost, on condition that the lands should be returned when the project work is completed. In fact, in the year 1978 an extent of Ac. 5-59 cents of land was returned, that old buildings of the sub-division section offices are dismantled, and reconstruction of the same is taken up as part of HLMC Modernization Package No. 4, and the works of 16 Nos. In fact, in the year 1978 an extent of Ac. 5-59 cents of land was returned, that old buildings of the sub-division section offices are dismantled, and reconstruction of the same is taken up as part of HLMC Modernization Package No. 4, and the works of 16 Nos. of Lascar Quarters is to be taken up in the dismantled location as proposed in the modernization packages, that after marking the proper site for Lascar Quarters within the land under occupation, while so, an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents is identified as vacant land and that the said land Ac. 2-50 cents (Ac. 1-85 cents in Sy. No. 518 and Ac. 0-65 cents in Sy. No. 520) can be returned with the permission of the competent authority and sought for further action to be taken. 5. On receipt of the said letter, the 6th respondent addressed a letter in Rc. No. F3/8907/2013, dated 13.08.2013, to the 4th respondent, wherein the 6th respondent agreed with the recommendations of the 4th respondent and ordered for return of Ac. 2-50 cents of vacant land to L. Syamalamma, after obtaining prior permission from the head of the Irrigation Department. Then, the 4th respondent addressed Letter No. DB/W8WC/630CE dated 14.11.2013 to the 3rd respondent for issuance of necessary permission for handing over the land. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 26.11.2013 to the 2nd respondent for necessary directions. In turn, the 2nd respondent by Memo No. ENC(I)/DCEI/OTHLC/AEEI/TBPHLC/General/Vol. III, dated 07.12.2013, directed the 4th respondent to handover the vacant land in an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents to L. Syamalamma. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Executive Engineer, HLC (LoC), Sub Division Kanekal, by Letter No. 01K dated 14.02.2014 handed over Ac. 2-50 cents of vacant land to L. Syamalamma. More so, even after receipt of the said representation from the petitioner for the return of the remaining land, the respondents neither acted upon nor replied. 6. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner filed this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though they submitted representation for return of the remaining land i.e. extent of Ac. 8-98 cents, but returned only Ac. 2-50 cents withholding Acs. 6. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner filed this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though they submitted representation for return of the remaining land i.e. extent of Ac. 8-98 cents, but returned only Ac. 2-50 cents withholding Acs. 6-48 cents on the ground that still the construction of modernization of Project is going on and the said extent of land is required for completion of the same is nothing but contrary to the earlier agreement between the landlord and the state and also against the principles of administrative law. 8. He further submits that the land in an extent of Ac. 14-57 cents were parted for the convenience of the State to complete the Tungabhadra Project High Level Canal Division (TPHLC Division) only, but not for modernization and maintenance of the Project forever. The intention of the landlord can be drawn from the documents under which the land was handed over with a condition to return the land after the completion of the Project and therefore, in view of the said condition, the respondent authorities are under obligation to return the entire land after completion of the Project and they cannot make us as beggars to get our own property. 9. He further submits that the reply of the authorities is that the land is still required for making certain constructions for the modernization of the Project, since the land was parted by the landlord till the completion of the construction including modernization. Moreover, the land is vested with the Department since the landlord availed an exemption under the Land Ceiling Act, 1972, so it cannot be returned is an arbitrary and high-handed attitude of the respondents. 10. He further submits that the reply of the official respondents that once the land is donated to the Department, the donor ceases to be the title holder and more so, in view of the exemption obtained by the land owner from the Land Reforms Tribunal, the landlord will no longer be the landholder of the subject land, so there is no interest to acquire the land by the respondent authorities, it denoted the hand-handed action of the respondents against the principles of natural justice as well as the administrative law. Therefore, the action of the respondents is against the constitutional rights i.e. the Right of Property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the administrative principle of fair play by public authority towards its citizens. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the exemption granted by the Land Reforms Tribunal is not on the basis of the land was parted to the Department, but only on the ground that the land which was in occupancy of the respondent authorities is not the agricultural land. Therefore, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1972 are not applicable to the subject property. As such, on that ground, only the exemption was granted but not on the ground that the land was within the possession of the respondent authorities. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since there is no written condition to return the land after completion of Project executed between the landlord and the respondent authorities is invented for the purpose of avoiding the return of land by the authorities. It is further contended that the respondents being a public authority, they should be bona fide and fair enough and cannot entertain doubts regarding the registered Will executed by the donor and his wife in favour of the petitioner herein. More so, except the petitioner, nobody neither demanded nor submitted a representation for the return of the amount. 13. He further submits that even though the registered Will is executed in favour of the petitioner, but mere non-mentioning of the subject property, it cannot be declared as there is no legal heir in respect of the subject property. He further contends by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter addressed by the 4th respondent to the 6th respondent is an answer to all the allegations raised by the respondents herein, wherein it is categorically admitted that the land was given at free of cost in the year 1967 on the condition that the same should be returned when it is not required by the Department after completion of the Project in the year 1978. 14. 14. He further contends that in view of the specific and categorical admission on the part of the respondents, the entire land should be returned to the legal heirs of the land lords i.e. to the petitioner herein and being a public authority, it cannot withhold the land of the third party without there being any authority of law more particularly without acquiring the property under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). 15. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable since there is no violation of the constitutional, legal rights of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has to approach the competent civil Court to seek redelivery of possession of the property. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. It is stated that one L. Chinnappa Reddy, landlord donated the non-agricultural land an extent of Acs. 14-67 cents for the construction of offices, residential buildings, inspection bungalow, staff quarters etc., for the construction of TBPHLC Division and parted exclusive possession and enjoyment in favour of the respondent authorities. 16. It is further stated that upon the application of the landlord, after completion of the Project, an extent of Acs. 5-59 cents (Ac. 4-60 cents in Sy. No. 518, Ac. 1-04 cents in Sy. No. 520 A3 and Ac. 0-95 cents in Sy. No. 520 C) from out of the aforesaid extent of Ac. 14-57 cents were returned in the year 1978. In view of the orders passed by the land reforms authority dated 11.08.1978. It is further stated that there is no condition between the landlord and the respondent authorities that after the completion of the Project works, land should be returned to them when it is no longer required by the Department. Therefore, since there is no condition for returning land, the petitioner cannot claim the return of land on the ground of legal heirs or successors of the landlord. 17. It is further stated that the schedule of the Will dated 14.11.1989 in which the petitioner is claiming the return of the land as legal heir/successor, does not contain the subject property. Therefore, the landlord permanently parted the land in favour of the Government for its public purpose. 17. It is further stated that the schedule of the Will dated 14.11.1989 in which the petitioner is claiming the return of the land as legal heir/successor, does not contain the subject property. Therefore, the landlord permanently parted the land in favour of the Government for its public purpose. The petitioner is not entitled to receive the remaining lands as a legal heir under the guise of the alleged will dated 14.11.1980. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the landlord is entitled to receive the land when it is not required after the completion of the Project. Therefore, the acquisition of the subject land by the respondents does not arise, and also the payment of damages for unauthorized possession and occupation of land also does not arise. 18. It was further stated that after filing of this writ petition, an extent of Acs. 2-50 cents in Survey Nos.518 and 520 are returned to the wife of the landlord by the Assistant Executive Engineer, HLC Project vide letter No. 01K, dated 14.02.2014 is not valid and subject land cannot be handed over to Syamalamma. The said land shall be handed over after obtaining prior permission from the head of the Department. Since there is no prior permission to return back the land, the land already handed over to the original pattadar is not valid, and the respondent is taking steps to get back Acs. 2-50 cents. 19. It is further stated that there is an existing Project and there are existing buildings, and staff quarters in the said land which cannot be removed and the said Project is meant for public purpose. The properties that are in existence on the said land cannot be removed or demolished. In such circumstances, returning the land to the petitioner by the Government does not arise. 20. It is also stated that once the infrastructure of the property was established by the Government by spending a huge amount on the said land, the completion of the project work does not arise because it is a continuous process. The Project was installed for public purposes. Water regulation for drinking water as well as for irrigation is a continuous process which is meant for public purposes. It is further stated that the subject land is not a vacant site. 21. The Project was installed for public purposes. Water regulation for drinking water as well as for irrigation is a continuous process which is meant for public purposes. It is further stated that the subject land is not a vacant site. 21. It is further contended that as there is no written agreement between the Government and the landlord to return the non-agricultural land to the petitioner, and as the alleged Will does not disclose about subject property to be returned to the petitioner, claiming return of the land after lapse of 49 years basing on the alleged manipulated Will is not maintainable. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for return of the land and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. Whileso, one L. Vijaya Ranga Reddy also filed a implead petition I.A. No. 1 of 2020, claiming that he is the legal heir and is entitled to receive the land since the said land was fallen to the share of his great grandfather L. Govinda Reddy. In view of the said contention of the implead petitioner that he is a proper and necessary party to adjudicate the matter, his implead petition was ordered by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2022. Learned counsel for the implead petitioner contended that the entire land admeasuring an extent of Acs. 14-57 cents fell to the share of late L. Govinda Reddy who is the grandfather of the petitioner herein. As per the registered partition deed entered between the brothers of L. Chinnappa reddy and others, this land was fallen to the share of L. Govinda Reddy. 23. He further submits that the petitioner herein i.e. Nandakumar Reddy, is the adopted son of L. Chinnappa Reddy, who is also the son of L. Chinna Chandra Reddy, brother of L. Chinnappa Reddy and in the event of a return of the said property he is entitled one share of the said property since the entire land is held by the great grandfather of the petitioner as well as the implead petitioner herein. 24. 24. Having regard to the contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents as well as the learned counsel for the implead petitioner that contention of the petitioner that he is the legal heir and the landlord L. Chinnappa Reddy bequeathed the entire properties in his favour by way of Registered Will deed 14.11.1980, as such he is entitled to claim the return of property which was entitled by his father L. Chinnappa Reddy is valid and reasonable. In view of that, the petitioner is an adopted son and none other than the son of a younger brother i.e. L. Chinnappa Reddy. 25. The other contention of the petitioner is that the land, which was admeasuring Acs. 14-57 cents which, was handed over to the respondents for the purpose of construction of the said Project with the condition that it should be returned after completion of the Project is also sustainable for the reason that out of Ac. 14-57 cents Acs. 5-59 cents was already returned by virtue of orders passed by the Land Reforms Authority vide proceedings dated 11.08.1978 upon the application filed by the landlord, i.e. L. Chinnappa Reddy, who is the grantor of the subject land. 26. The other contention of the petitioner is that the Project itself was completed in the year 1978, and the wife of the landlord submitted a representation in the year 2013 seeking for return of the remaining land i.e. Acs. 8-98 cents and a part of the land i.e. Ac. 2-50 cents which is vacant land was returned in favour of the wife of the landlord by the respondent authorities vide proceedings dated 14.02.2014, which indicates that originally the land was handed over by the landlord to the respondent authorities with a condition to return the said land after completion of the Project is also sustainable for the reason that the authorities are taking steps to return the land where it is vacant in two(2) occasions i.e. one is on 11.08.1978 and another part of the land to the wife of the landlord on 14.02.2014. If such a condition is not there, the respondent authorities could not have acted upon. 27. If such a condition is not there, the respondent authorities could not have acted upon. 27. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the adopted son/legal heir and also the beneficiary of the will executed by the landlord and his wife, Smt. Syamalamma vide Registered will dated 14.11.1980, but the subject property was not mentioned at the will. But being a legal heir he is entitled the estate of L. Chinnappa Reddy and Syamalamma is also valid and tenable for the reason that the petitioner is an adopted son and none other than the son of another brother of L. Chinnappa Reddy and the same is also admitted by the implead petitioner, who is also son of another brother of L. Chinnappa Reddy. 28. The other contention of the petitioner is that being a public authority/State, it cannot hold the land of the third party under the guise of public purpose or on the guise of infrastructure projects already existing upon the land without there being any authority and without acquiring any legal right over the land either by way of acquisition or by way of any written deed is also valid and acceptable and is also should be considered, due to the fact that being a public authority, the State cannot hold the land of the third party in the absence of legal right or valid authority, after the expiry of the purpose for which it was parted their possession. 29. The another contention of the petitioner that the remaining subject land is required by the respondents for the purpose of modernization and maintenance of the subject project, they should acquire the land of the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and also the respondents are liable to pay damages/compensation for withholding the land without returning the same since 1978 is reasonable and tenable for the reason that the public authority/State cannot hold or possess the land of third party even for public purpose without having legal rights and acquiring the same. 30. 30. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the lands were donated by the then landlord L. Chinnappa Reddy in the year 1952 and handed over the possession of the land for the public purpose for the construction of offices, staff quarters etc., for the purpose of construction of the said irrigation project and there is no written agreement between the landlord and the respondents as such, there is no written condition to return the land after completion of the Project as claimed by the petitioner is not sustainable for the reason that even though there is no written agreement and condition, but as per the understanding between the respondents and the then landlord, the part of the land i.e. Acs. 5-59 cents was returned in view of the proceedings dated 11.08.1978 which indicates that there is an implied condition/ understanding between the landlord and the respondents for return of the property. 31. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader that the subject land was handed over to the respondents for public purposes for the construction of an irrigation project which is meant for the public at large and also it is a continuous project since the respondent authorities should regulate the water for drinking as well as irrigation purposes, therefore, there is no date of completion of Project, hence, the contention of the petitioner that the land should be handed over after the completion of the Project does not arise is not valid and untenable. In view of that, the proceedings dated 11.08.1978 before the Land Reforms Authority, which became final and a part of the land was already returned and later in view of the proceedings of the 4th respondent and A.E.E. also handed over another part of the land to the wife of the landlord and a letter dated 14.02.2014 also reveals that there is an implied condition for the return of the said land. 32. The other contention of the respondent that the Will is not a proper Will, even assuming that Will is valid, but the subject property is not mentioned at schedule property of the Will and therefore the petitioner cannot claim the return of the property in the absence of the same is also not valid. 32. The other contention of the respondent that the Will is not a proper Will, even assuming that Will is valid, but the subject property is not mentioned at schedule property of the Will and therefore the petitioner cannot claim the return of the property in the absence of the same is also not valid. In view of the law of succession, even in the absence of mention of the subject property in the schedule of the Will, but the petitioner is an adopted son and legal heir of the original landlord/donor and he could succeed the entire estate even in the absence of the subject property in the schedule of the Will. 33. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader that the subject property has been in exclusive possession of the respondents for a long time, that the petitioner or the wife of the landlord have claimed for return of the land in the year 2013, even though the subject project was completed in the year 1978 itself, after a lapse of 49 years, they made a claim for return of said land and many projects are still existing upon the said land, and it cannot be returned is also untenable for the reason that being a public authority, in fact, the authority acted upon and returned more than 50 per cent of the land to the landlord and his wife and now it cannot be permitted to take over the land as if it is vested on the guise of that the infrastructure projects are in existence upon the land. 34. It is an admitted fact that the State does not have any title deed said to have been executed by the donor in its favour, or the said land was not acquired by the State by following the due procedure laid down under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the absence of the same, it is nothing but holding the land of the third party, which is parted for a specific period and for a specific purpose and converting the same as absolute right forever is nothing but an arbitrary and high-handed action of the respondents. 35. In the absence of the same, it is nothing but holding the land of the third party, which is parted for a specific period and for a specific purpose and converting the same as absolute right forever is nothing but an arbitrary and high-handed action of the respondents. 35. The other submission of respondents is that the subject land is exempted from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1972, since the nature of the land is non-agricultural land is also not acceptable for the reason that in fact, the land was handed over to the respondents in the year 1952 and the same was converted as project site by constructing so many structures upon the said land but not as contended by the respondent that the same is in possession of the Government and it was exempted from the purview of the Act, 1972 cannot be accepted, due to the fact that the nature of the land was changed from agriculture to non-agriculture much before to the Act, 1972. 36. It is also an admitted fact that the said respondents/State neither acquired the property nor conferred the title in its favour by way of any title deed or in the absence of any method of alienation by the property holder. Moreover, the possession is also for mere specific periods and specific purpose even though it is public purpose, the State cannot be vested with absolute right, to withhold the land forever against the wish of the grantor/landlord. 37. In the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799 : 2020 SCC Online SC 14 Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. 12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. 12.8. The contention of the State that the appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. We find complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the appellant of her property by the State.” 38. In the case of Raju S. Jethmalani and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 11 SCC 222 : 2005 SCC Online SC 932 Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “.....The question is whether without acquiring the land the Government can deprive a person of his use of the land. This in our opinion, cannot be done. It would have been possible for the Municipal Corporation and the Government of Maharashtra to acquire the land in order to provide civic amenities. But the land in question has not been acquired. We are quite conscious of the fact that the open park and garden are necessary for the residents of the area. But at the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that a citizen is deprived of his rights without following proper procedure of law....” 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the land on the guise of public purpose and projects are developed, and some infrastructure projects are developed upon the land, and some are in existence and since there is no written condition to return the land to the landlord or to the legal heirs is illegal, arbitrary and against the administrative principle of fair play and principle of reasonableness are nothing but depriving the constitutional right of the petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 40. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to take steps for the return of the land to the petitioner, or if the respondents are intended to withhold the land for the purpose of the Project, they should acquire the land by following due process of law as required under the Act 30 of 2013. 40. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to take steps for the return of the land to the petitioner, or if the respondents are intended to withhold the land for the purpose of the Project, they should acquire the land by following due process of law as required under the Act 30 of 2013. As far as the damages/compensation is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation seeking damages/compensation for withholding the land by the respondents since 2013 only, on which date the wife of the landlord made an application for the return of the land. 41. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 42. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.