JUDGMENT 1. Heard Smt. Siva Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramesh Katikaneni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows: "It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in occupying and constructing Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project in extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5- 17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District without following procedure and without paying compensation as per law and further threatening to occupy remaining extent of Ac.4-17 cents, as illegal, aribitrary and violative of Article 31 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. The facts of the case as submitted by the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner are that the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner herein is the absolute owner of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; that the Official Respondents have occupied an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5-17 cents and illegally constructed Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project without following due procedure and without paying any compensation as per law; that, they are further threatening to occupy the balance land to an extent of Ac.4-17 cents; that, this land was being used for rearing cattle and sheep by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner, late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao; that, this land is adjacent to the village; that, this land devolved upon the mother of the Writ Petitioner, and thereafter upon the Writ Petitioner, being the only son; that, as such the Writ Petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.5-17 cents; that, during the course of time, due to various reasons, the cattle and sheep could not be maintained and that the family of the Writ Petitioner have also shifted their place of residence to Vijayawada while being in possession and enjoyment of the said vacant land; that, the Writ Petitioner had approached the Respondents on number of occasions to find out the reason as to why they forcibly occupied the land and constructed Water Tank and Filtration plant without following the due process of law, but in vain; that, as the Respondents are proposing to occupy the balance of remaining land, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file a Suit for Injunction bearing O.S.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru; that in the said Suit (O.S.No.84 of 2012), the Official Respondents filed a Written Statement acknowledging that the GrandFather of the Writ Petitioner late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao made an Oral Gift to the State Panchayat for the welfare of the general public, and since then the land got vested with the Government/Panchayat; that, request made by the Writ Petitioner to furnish any documentary evidence evidencing oral conveyance proved futile as the plea of the Official Respondents is that it is by Oral Gift that the Grand-Father has conveyanced this land to the Official Respondents for the benefit of public; that the Official Respondents have also raised an alternate and inconsistent plea that the subject land was surrendered as excess land under the A.P. Land Reform Act, 1974; and, that as there was no response to the legal notice dtd. 10/12/2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is twofold: (i) seeking a direction to pay compensation in accordance with law for the land (Ac.1-00 cents) illegally occupied by the Official Respondents and constructed water treatment plant and water overhead tank; and (ii) not to interfere with the balance of land to an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; 5. The Writ Petitioner has also placed on record Ex.P4 which is copy of the Adangal/Pahani wherein at Column No.12, the name of Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao is shown as Owner (name of pattadar) and in Column No.13 the Enjoyer is shown as Rajiv Technology Pilot Project. By Order dtd. 18/7/2022 the parties were directed to disclose the status of O.S.No.82 of 2012 and to place on record the relevant proceedings. In pursuance of this Order, the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has filed, by way of Memo dtd. 16/8/2022, the copy of the final Judgment and Decree dtd. 21/4/2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, wherein and whereby the said suit seeking Permanent Injunction by the Writ Petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.12 & 14 of the said Judgment wherein the Trial Court has recorded the contentions of the Revenue Authorities/Defendants therein to the following effect: "12) The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) has argued that, the forefather of the plaintiffs who is the original owner and landlord donated the land cover in R.S.No.319/2 and R.S.No.188/4 of Telladevarapalli Village and the same was accepted by the then Revenue Authorities and said gift came in to force, that's why either plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest did not shown the plaint schedule property in their declaration under A.P.Land Reforms Act, 1974. In the year 1975 the predecessors of the plaintiffs filed their declaration under A.P.Land Reforms Act, 1974, the Government constructed a M.P.U.P.School at about 15 years back in an extent of Ac.0-15 cents of land in R.S.No.319/2 and the remaining land got constructed houses to land less poor. In the year 1975 the predecessors of the plaintiffs filed their declaration under A.P.Land Reforms Act, 1974, the Government constructed a M.P.U.P.School at about 15 years back in an extent of Ac.0-15 cents of land in R.S.No.319/2 and the remaining land got constructed houses to land less poor. So, the plaint schedule property is not in a possession of plaintiffs from the year 1974, as if said land was surplus, surrendered by forefathers of the plaintiffs, so their successors in interest nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit. Moreover, the evidence of the plaintiff not established the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit; due to hiking of the rates and the plaintiffs are residing at Vijayawada and filed this suit with a view to get back the property which ever given by their forefathers to the Government under Land Reforms Act, hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for reliefs and prayed to dismiss the suit. 14) It is undisputed fact that, during the Arguments of both parties it was revealed that, the forefathers of the plaintiffs are real owners of said property. In order to establish the contention of the plaintiffs, Except the Ex.A1 there are no documents placed by the plaintiffs. Except they relied on Ex.A1, stating that as if the schedule property is inherited from their forefathers and no documents was placed by them in this suit proceedings. The contention of the Revenue Authorities/Defendants is that the forefathers of the plaintiffs surrendered the said land by way of gift deed to the Government under Land Reforms Act, 1974 and they are not in a possession and enjoyment of the said property from long back and they are not in a possession of suit schedule property. It is for the Government, utilized said property for public purpose and the plaintiffs cannot get injunction orders as there is no base of said property saying that the plaintiffs are in possession as on the date of filing of this suit and also it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they handed over said property to their villager to look after the same as they residing somewhere else". 6. 6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the First Appeal bearing A.S.No.29 of 2015 filed by the Plaintiff therein, that is the Writ Petitioner, was also dismissed on 17/8/2018 and that the Second Appeal bearing S.A.No.217 of 2019 is pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court. 7. The Respondent No.4 namely the Thasildhar, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District has filed CounterAffidavit dtd. 20/12/2017, wherein it has been stated that Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao has orally donated the land to the Government for communal purpose long back i.e. sometime around early 70s. It is also stated in the Counter-Affidavit that no registered document to that effect are forthcoming in this office as this office was newly formed as a Mandal in 1985. It is denied in the Counter that the Official Respondents have illegally occupied the land. It is also stated that though the drinking water project was conceived in the year 2001, the project work had commenced only on 9/5/2011 with the funds of NABARD RIDF with an estimated cost of Rs.1, 100.00 lakhs. Along with the Counter-Affidavit, the Government also has filed the photocopy of the Adangal of the Pattadars, wherein the name of the Pattadar shown as Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao, who is none other than the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner (in Column No.12) and name of the Enjoyer shown as house sites and Rajiv Technology (in Column No.13). 8. Having heard both the learned counsel and having gone through the record, this Court has noticed the following facts as admitted: 1) that, the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner was the absolute owner of the Ac.5-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; 2) that, there is no written conveyance as gift by the Grand-Father to the Official Respondents for a public purpose; 3) that, no documents were produced by the Official Respondents to prove the oral conveyance of gift for the benefit of the public; and 4) that, the Official Respondents have occupied Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5-17 cents and constructed a Water Treatment Plant and Over Head Tank; 9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed on record the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 410). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed on record the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 410). At paragraph Nos.19 to 23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: 19. The facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action, which is also violative of the appellants' prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction. This court, in Manohar (supra) - a similar case where the name of the aggrieved had been deleted from revenue records leading to his dispossession from the land without payment of compensation - held: "Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the case projected before the court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its mistake and promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and reasonable claim of the respondent. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the Fortyfourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows: "300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law." "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution..." 20. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution..." 20. Again, in Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra) while dealing with a similar fact situation, this court held as follows: "There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode." 21. Having considered the pleadings filed, this court finds that the contentions raised by the State, do not inspire confidence and deserve to be rejected. The State has merely averred to the appellants' alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation. It is pertinent to note that this was the State's position, and subsequent findings of the High Court in 2007 as well, in the other writ proceedings. 22. This court is also not moved by the State's contention that since the property is not adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity. 22. This court is also not moved by the State's contention that since the property is not adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity. Despite it not being adjoining (which is admitted in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellants), it is clear that the subject land was acquired for the same reason - construction of the Narag Fagla Road, in 1972-1973, and much like the claimants before the reference court, these appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following due process of law, thus resulting in violation of Article 31 and warranting the High Court's intervention under Article 226 jurisdiction. In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law. The need for written consent in matters of land acquisition proceedings, has been noted in fact, by the full court decision of the High Court in Shankar Dass (supra) itself, which is relied upon in the impugned judgment. 23. This court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances - rejected the contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the State: "12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension." 10. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension." 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held very clearly that in absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the deprived parties are entitled to compensation in accordance with law. This is in the light of the fact that in the above rendered Judgment also the Official Respondents have not been able to establish the alleged voluntary gift like in the present case where the Official Respondents have held that the Grand-Father has given Oral Gift in favour of the Official Respondents. 11. In view of the above findings, this Court is constrained to hold that the Official Respondents have miserably failed to prove that Ac.5-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District has been orally gifted in favour of the Government/Pancyayat for public purpose. Having so held, this Court further holds that the Writ Petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation for the land taken by the Official Respondents for construction of water treatment plant and over head tank etc., in an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. 12. This Court also holds that in view of the admitted fact that the subject land belongs to the GrandFather of the Writ Petitioner and this Court having rendered a finding that the Official Respondents failed to prove any conveyance by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner in favour of the Official Respondents, the said Official Respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the Writ Petitioner of an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District except in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.