Allada Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ possession of lands without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and by paying meager amounts as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential relief of restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the lands situated in Dorasanipadu village, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District. The petitioners have pleaded that they are agriculturists and that taking advantage of their ignorance and in order to benefit a few landlords, the respondents have paid paltry amounts without initiating proceedings under the Act by issuing notification under Section 4(1), holding enquiry under Section 5-A and following the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The petitioners have further pleaded that the respondents, instead of constructing pipelines, are digging canals without proper measurement of bunds.

The petitioners are stated to have submitted a representation dated 11- 10-2010 to respondent No.3 and that the said representation is not disposed of. Terming this action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. This Court by interim order dated 25-10-2010 directed respondents consider petitioners’ representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is inter alia stated that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 5-2-2005 and the same was published in the West Godavari District Gazette on 12-3-2005 and also in the locality on 20-3-2005; that the lands which were proposed for acquisition were got surveyed by the Special Surveyor (L.A.), Jangareddygudem and the Sub- Division record was pre-scrutinised by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records on 10-12- 2004 and the lands notified for acquisition were adopted in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and also in the notices issued under Section 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act; that the persons interested have not raised their objections as to the measurements in the award enquiry and the extents as per the pre-scrutinised S.D. records are accordingly adopted in awarding the compensation.

It is further averred that after causing publication of notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the then Land Acquisition Officer, held enquiry 25-5-2006; during negotiations, the petitioners who have attended the enquiry, have given their consent for acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs.95,000/- per acre; that after completion of negotiations, the said rate of Rs.95,000/- per acre was fixed and the same was approved by the Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru by proceedings dated 22-5-2006; that accordingly, consent awards under Section 11(2) of the Act were passed on 25-5-2006. The counter- affidavit specifically asserted that all the petitioners have signed Form Nos.III and IV on the basis of which the consent awards were passed and they have received the entire compensation. The counter-affidavit accused the petitioners

suppressing material facts in filing the Writ Petition feigning ignorance of the land acquisition proceedings. Respondent No.3 has denied the allegation that the respondents have been changing the alignment of the canal. It is asserted that the excavation of canal is being taken up strictly as per the original alignment without any deviation and that the possession of the lands in question was taken long back and handed-over to the Irrigation Department. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, they have implicitly admitted to passing of award on 25-5-2006 and payment of compensation in May 2007. The petitioners have however stated that during the course of digging the canal, they have noticed change of alignment. They have stated in pursuance of the interim order, the respondents have given a notice of enquiry and that after the enquiry, report has not been submitted so far.

In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition for the simple reason that they have not disclosed the fact that acquisition proceedings were initiated, in which they participated, leading to the passing of consent awards. They have asserted in their affidavit that the respondents have not followed the procedure under the Act by issuing notification under Section 4(1) and the procedure prescribed under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Except raising a vague plea that they have received certain paltry amounts, the petitioners have not mentioned the fact that the notification and the declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published and enquiry was held by the negotiations committee in which they have given statements in Form Nos.III and IV on the basis of which the consent awards were passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Once the consent awards were passed and compensation amounts were received, the petitioners cannot question the action of the respondents on the manner in which the acquired land is utilized for excavation of canals.

The plea of the petitioners that the alignment of the canal has been changed emphatically denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. As noted above, the respondents have also asserted that before the awards were passed, survey and demarcation of the notified lands was conducted and that the canal is being excavated as per the original alignment. Sri Ramelingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 25-10- 2010, an enquiry has been held and that if the report is called for, the truth will come out. The purported enquiry was held in pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court. As this Court finds that the petitioners do not deserve any relief as they have suppressed material facts before this Court, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to call for such report. A person who approaches the Court for grant of relief is under solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material facts.

If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure system of justice, the Court not only has the right but the duty to deny relief to such person. (See: Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admi n i st r at i on ), Bareilly Division [1] K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited [2] ). For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order 25-10-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.33530/2010 and WVMP No.1481/2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 1-12-2011 AM [1] (2010) 4 SCC 728 [2] (2008) 12 SCC 481