ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) This writ petition is filed declaring arrest of the petitioner in violation of the mandate of Section 41 of Criminal procedure code, as illegal and arbitrary and directing the respondents No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the illegal acts of Sub Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur in registering the Crime No.112 of 2016 against the petitioner without there being any grounds and also for arresting the petitioner in violation of Section 41 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the lands situated in Survey No.270/1B with an extent of Ac 0.74 cents, Survey No.215/2B with an extent of Ac 1.55 cents and 373/1 with an extent of Ac 0.72 cents of Nandikotkur Village, Kurnool District and the said lands are his ancestral properties. The respondent No.4 initiated proceedings for acquisition of lands for construction of link channel under HNSS Scheme and issued a notification under Section-4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated 12-06-2009. The respondent No.4 proposed to award Rs.3 Lakhs only per acre. On previous occasions, other lands of petitioner with an extent of Ac 9-63 cents were already acquired and a very meager compensation was paid in respect of those lands and the petitioner was unwilling to part with his lands unless just compensation was awarded to him and he did not participate in further proceedings. Though the petitioner continues to be in possession, as per "Legal Possession Certificate" dated 29.05.2010 the subject lands were handed over by respondents No.3 to respondent No.4. Further, though the petitioner did not participate in the award enquiry, as per the award, he appeared for Award Enquiry on 11-02-2010 and gave his deposition. In the first week of July, 2014, the respondent No.5 threatened to take possession of the lands and the petitioner filed WP No.20725 of 2014 before this Court declaring the Award No.1/2010-2011, dated 12.05.2010, as illegal and for a consequential direction not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The same was disposed of directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the lands in Survey Nos. 270/18, 215/2B and 373/1 of Malyala Village to an extent of 0.75 acres, 1.55 acres and 0.72 acres respectively. The same was disposed of directing the respondents that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the lands in Survey Nos. 270/18, 215/2B and 373/1 of Malyala Village to an extent of 0.75 acres, 1.55 acres and 0.72 acres respectively. While the things stood thus, in spite of the above order is in force, on 04.04.2016, the subordinates of respondent No.5 started dumping earth and stones in the land of the petitioner and also caused further damage to the lands. Since the respondent No 5 attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the lands willfully and deliberately, in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 20725 of 2014 dated 24-07-2014, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.924 of 2016. As the petitioner filed contempt case, the respondent No.6, at the instance of respondent No.5, has given a false complaint dated 18.09.2016 alleging that the petitioner cut the pipes and that he removed them in spite of the requests by the Supervisors and that he also took away the ignition keys of tractors bearing Nos. AP 21 TZ 1433 and AP 21 TY 2340. Basing on the said complaint, the respondent No.2 has registered a case in Crime No. 112 of 2016 under Section 3 of PDPP Act and the petitioner was arrested by the Police and produced before JMFC Nandikotur on 23-09- 2016 at 4-30 pm and remanded to judicial custody and he was released on bail on 29-09-2016. Later, the Respondent No.2 has filed a charge sheet and the same was numbered as CC No. 334 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur. It is stated that the Respondent No 2 did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 41 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after release on bail, the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are frequently threatening the petitioner that they would foist many more cases against him if he does not agree to their terms. The respondent No 2 is frequently summoning the petitioner and his children to the police station. Due to the threats of respondents 2 and 5, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The respondents No.4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavits. The respondent No 2 is frequently summoning the petitioner and his children to the police station. Due to the threats of respondents 2 and 5, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The respondents No.4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavits. The 4th respondent, in his counter affidavit, while denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that as per the consent given by the petitioner in Award enquiry statement, Form III & IV (Agreement Bond) as per the LA Act, Award has been passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act and the consent amount was also distributed to all the awardees except the present petitioner, as he has not turned up for taking the land compensation consented amount though petitioner has accepted the consented himself in the agreement in Form-III & IV. The contention of the petitioner is not correct that he has not given written consent as the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act was passed in Award No.1/2010-11, dated 12.5.2010, basing on the consent given by the petitioner only. It is further contended that the petitioner also filed a case in Hon’ble High Court of AP against the LAO and others on the ground that he has not given consent for taking his land under land acquisition vide WP No.20725 of 2014. It is also contended that, as per the Legal possession handed over to the irrigation Authorities proceeded to take possession of the petitioner lands. Due to interim orders passed in WP No.20725 of 2014 those lands were not taken into possession and status quo is being maintained till to date and the respondents never interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner. it is further contended in the counter affidavit that the contention of the petitioner that he did not give any consent and no notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act was served upon him. This issue has been disposed of by the High Court of AP & Telangana in WP No.20275 of 2014 dated 25.04.2017 in favour of Land Acquisition Officer, by stating that the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware about the award being passed and that he is in possession of the property, cannot be accepted. Accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed. So, in view of the above, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 4. Accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed. So, in view of the above, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 4. The 5th respondent in his counter affidavit while denying the allegations made in the petition stated that, on receipt of the Award No.1/2010-2011, dated 15.05.2020, EPC agency has planned to commence the excavation of Link Channel in the fields of the petitioner and deployed required men and machinery to the fields of the petitioner during the year July 2014 as the said land was handed over by the 4th respondent through Rc.No.C/70/2008, dated 29.05.2010. But due to the strong protest from the petitioner, the agency has withdrawn his men & machinery from the fields of petitioner and not taken up the work in that area so far. It is a fact that the petitioner has filed CC No.924 of2016 and reply affidavit was also submitted by this respondent with facts. It is also stated that this respondent has not made any act against the petitioner in obedience to the Court orders in WP No.20725 of 2014, dated 24.07.2014. In fact this respondent has no knowledge about the contempt case filed against the petitioner. the petitioner is willfully included this respondent as a respondent with a false opinion in view of the facts brought out by this respondent to the kind notice of this Hon’ble Court against his previous petitions. So, the contents of the petitioner against the respondent No.5 are absolutely false and baseless as being respondent No.5, this respondent has no personnel and financial obligations with the petitioner, hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that even according to the Form CC (Acquaintance of the Awardees of Malyala Village under HNSS Project in Package No.1, though all the land owners have received the compensation awarded by the LAO, the amount payable to the petitioner is said to have been kept in a Recurring Deposit in District Treasury, Kurnool vide Challan No.4317 dated 28.01.2011. He further submits that the Award No.1/2010- 2011 dated 12.05.2010 is not at all binding on the petitioner. He further submits that the Award No.1/2010- 2011 dated 12.05.2010 is not at all binding on the petitioner. the petitioner did not question the award since he continued to be in possession and since no compensation was paid to him. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of High Court of Allahabad reported in (i) Shaukin vs. State of U.P and others, MANU/UP/2390/2011, wherein it was held that : But we do expect the police officer to record reasons in a bona fide and honest manner, why it has become necessary to arrest the accused in a particular case punishable with imprisonment with upto 7 years. The police officer should not mechanically and routinely write down in the case diary that there is likelihood of the accused running away, or presume that the accused would not respond to the notice to appear under section 41 A Cr.P.C, or that he would tamper with the evidence, unless there are strong reasons with concrete material for taking such a view, and this satisfaction along with the concrete reasons for taking the view need to be spelt out clearly in the case diary before the accused is arrested. 13. Thus strong reasons are needed for arresting an accused with respectable antecedents, who is an income tax payee with roots in the community, and a permanent abode, no history of earlier abscondance or non-cooperation with the police and who is not likely to tamper with the evidence or to again commit a crime unless he is immediately arrested. (ii) In a case reported in Bharat Devdan Salvi and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, MANU/MH/0047/2016, wherein the High Court of Bombay held that It is indeed a matter of great concern that despite the offence being bailable, the Investigating agency, the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court were responsible for detaining the aforesaid petitioners in custody from 7.6.2015 to 24.6.2015 in total contravention of the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner nos.3 and 4. 35. Hence we deem it fit to direct an enquiry agianst the errant police officers, as well as the concerned judicial officers, in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (para 11.7 and 11.8. supra). 35. Hence we deem it fit to direct an enquiry agianst the errant police officers, as well as the concerned judicial officers, in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (para 11.7 and 11.8. supra). The petitioner nos.3 and 4 are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for compensation, if they so desire. (iii) In another case reported in Rini Johar and others vs State of M.P and others. MANU/SC/0667/2016, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 178 (2012) 1 SCC 748 Page 24 comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised. (iv) In another case reported in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B, 1997 ACR SC 21 277, 1997 AIR SC 610, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : The Executive Chairman after reproducing the new items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for atrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for accountability of the efforts are often made to hush up the matter of lock-up deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and "flourishes". It was requested that the letter along with the new items be treated as a writ petition under "public interest litigation" category. The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages of tortious acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitutions is remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation or the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalising the wrong door and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner on relying upon the above decisions, submits that, in this case, the 2nd respondent did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 41 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the remand report, with regard to compliance of Section 41 of Cr.P.C, there is a bald allegations that “Under the above circumstances, if the accused released on bail, he may indulge in similar activities due to lack of fear of police cases.” He further submits that, the learned Magistrate and the 2nd respondent have also failed to follow the directions of Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another case, it would clearly mentioned that “Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for the contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.” Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in arresting the petitioner without any basis and in violation of Section 41 Cr.PC. and the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court are violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and hence the State is liable to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner for the unlawful and illegal acts of the officers of the State. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that, basing on the report of the complainant-the respondent No.6, a case in Crime No.112/2016 under Section 3 of PDPP Act of Nandikotkur Police station was registered against the petitioner and took up investigation into this. He would submit that, during the course of investigation, respondent No.2 examined as many as 05 witnesses including complainant and seized two black water pipes in the presence of Panchayathdars under the cover of Panchanama for the purpose of investigation. Later, the respondent No.2 arrested the petitioner on 23.09.2016 at 11.00 hrs in front of APSRTC Bus Stand, Nandikotkur town and sent him for remand. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as CC No.334 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur. The same was ended in acquittal vide order dated 19.07.223. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition as against the respondent No.2. 10. On perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the submission of both the learned counsels, this Court observed that, there is no allegation either in the complaint or in the statements of any of the witnesses that the property allegedly destroyed by the petitioner i.e., four pipes, belong to the Government. As per the case of the prosecution, the link canal work is taken up by a contractor by name Rajagopala Reddy and therefore the property is not public property within the meaning of Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.2 in registering the case against the petitioner is highly illegal. Further, as seen from the charge sheet, the sketch of scene of offence filed along with charge sheet shows that as though the pipes are laid in between the petitioner’s two plots of land and the same caused huge loss to the petitioner and yet he took recourse to legal action by filing contempt case. So it clearly shows the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged in the charge sheet. So it clearly shows the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged in the charge sheet. As seen from the release order of the petitioner, it is mentioned that, the accused is/are directed to appear before concerned SHO on every Saturday and between 10.00 AM for a period of one month or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier and shall cooperate for investigation agency in further investigation if any intimate the same to the concerned police. As per the contention of the petitioner that, even after the petitioner’s release on bail, the respondents No.2 and 4 are frequently threatening the petitioner that they would foist many more cases against the petitioner, if he does not agree to their terms. So, due to the threats, the petitioner is apprehending danger to his life and liberty and also his family. 11. In view of the above, in this case, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioner was compelled to face humiliation. He has been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41 A of Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and on considering the relevant material on record, this Court is of the considered view, inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following observations: i) Declaring the action of the respondents in arresting the petitioner in connection with CC No.334 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur as illegal; ii) That the petitioner would be entitled to the costs of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation which shall be deposited at the first instance by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, within two (02) months, and then would be recovered from the salaries of the defaulting/erring officers/officials in accordance with law; It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advise. 13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.