✦ High Court of India · 07 Dec 2012

Singana Nagi Reddy v. The Government of A.P.

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Dec 2012
Court
High Court of India
Case No.
Writ Petition No. 13504 of 2007
Decided
07 Dec 2012
Length
2,244 words

Acts & Sections

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Original judgment text

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13504 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in omitting the house properties of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.601-1 of Gollapalli village, H/o Malinenipatnam, Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District while acquiring all the houses in the village and the further action of the respondents in not initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act despite the proposals submitted by the respondents 3 and 4, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the house properties of the petitioners and pay compensation therefor. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: They are the absolute owners of the house properties situated in Sy.No.601-1 of Gollapalli village, H/o. Malinenipatnam, Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District. All the houses in Gollapalli village have been acquired for foreshore submersion of Somasila Project by issuing a notification on 8-2-1994 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in A.P.Gazettee at issue No.5, 11-2-1994. The Government also issued declaration dated 9-2-1994 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in A.P.Gazettee at issue No.7 dated 25-2-1994. An award bearing No.4/95-96 dated 2-3-1996 was passed and compensation has been paid to the owners of the house properties. On some misconception of law and facts, the house properties of the petitioners were omitted in the said notification. In this connection, on several representations of the petitioners to the respondents 1 to 3, the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Atmakur sent a requisition for the acquisition of their house properties, which were found to be missing in the earlier notification in his proceedings dated 13-3-1996. the Special Deputy Thereafter, Collector, the 3rd respondent, on due inspection of the structures, submitted draft notification and declaration proposals to the Special Collector, the 2nd respondent and the Special Collector returned the proposals in his proceedings dated 10-2-1999 calling for a report as to whether the petitioners are the bonafide residents of the village. The 3rd respondent on due inspection, submitted proposals certifying that they are all bonafide residents of the village and also owning house properties with borewells and the 2nd petitioner is having a ration card and the names of the petitioners are existing in the electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayat. The 3rd respondent also enclosed the draft declaration and draft notification the proposals with his proceedings along with No.G/1199/97, dated 27-10=2000. But no action has been taken so far. the surrounding of In view of acquisition of all the house properties in the village as well as the agricultural lands, all most all the residents have migrated to different villages in Kadapa thereby and Nellore Districts and settled down constructing new houses with the compensation amounts received by them. As there are no residents in the village, all the communication facilities have been discontinued to their village. They have to walk a distance of 12 kilometers to board a bus. In view of the construction of Somasila Project, season. becoming water Consequently, the snakes and other poisonous beings are entering their houses frequently and they are living in telephone a very pitiable condition. There communication in their village and there are no roads to In view of the fact, though, their reach other places. landed compensation was paid, as their house properties were not acquired, they are forced to reside in the village. There is no livelihood since they became displaced on account of acquisition of their agricultural lands. The protection of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has no meaning without livelihood. properties were the village acquired already logged during is no Due to their misfortune, during the heavy rains in the year 2004, their house properties were damaged and hence, they were constrained to rebuilt the houses. The action of the respondents while acquiring all the house properties in the village, except the houses of the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent-The Special Deputy Collector on behalf of himself and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 denying the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners that are specifically admitted except hereunder and they, in brief, are as follows: the extent The entire houses in Gollapalli village have been acquired for foreshore submersion of Somasila Project. The Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Division No.IV, Atmakur has submitted a requisition vide his letter No.DB/D3/V-File No.546/M, dated 29-5-92 for 254 structures of Gollapalli village. H/o of Malinenipatnam for initiating Land Acquisition proceedings. Basing on the said requisition, the then Special Deputy Collector-3r d respondent has inspected on 21-12-1993 and found 254 structures existing in Sy.No.601/1 covering an extent of Ac. 8.71 cents which is classified as Village Site Poramboke. The Draft Notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.109 I&CAD department, dated 9-2-1994 and the Draft Declaration for the said structures was approved by the Government in its Memo No.7270/T.G.P.II-2/94 dated 9-2-1994. The Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Atmakur has prepared estimates for the said structures for an amount of Rs.77,32,917/- on 15-2-1996. The said structures were inspected by the Special Deputy Collector-3rd respondent on 26-2-1996 and conducted verification of structures. The Special Deputy Collector has conducted Award enquiry on 1-3-1996 and 2-3-1996. The writ petitioners have not informed the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the missing of four structures in the notification immediately after publication of Draft Notification and Draft Declaration in the News Papers. Only after one year after publication of Draft Notification, the Petitioners have preferred a representation through the then Member of the Legislative Assembly stating that their structures were missed compensation. The Special Revenue Inspector, Unit-IV, Rajampet has visited the village and reported that the structures are existing in the village on 29-7-1995. Basing on the report of the Revenue Inspector, the Special Deputy Collector-3rd respondent has addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, vide Rc.A3/95 dated August, the Notification requested

1995. The Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Division No.IV, Atmakur and Special Deputy Collector (L.A) Unit-IV, Rajampet have conducted joint inspection on 16-12- 1995. The Executive Engineer, Somasila Project has given the valuation of the four structures and estimated at Rs.2,35,840/- vide his letter No.Camp 1, dated 15-2-1996 and the petitioners are having structures in the village and they have taken compensation. Claiming compensation for additional structures constructed after Notification and modified in the year 2004 may not be a genuine claim. The Special Deputy Collector has submitted proposals under Section 4(1) and they were not approved by the Special Collector as the land Acquisition Officer could not establish whether the structure is constructed prior to notification. After taking compensation, the awardees preferred under Section 18 petitions for referring for enhancement of compensation and they were referred to Civil Court in O.P.Nos.42/99, 40/99 and 39/99 and also the petitioners have not claimed compensation for the missing structures, except for enhancement of compensation for the structures awarded in their favour. The petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as they have raised the structures with the knowledge of submergence. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the notification dated 8-2-1994 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while acquiring all the houses in the village, the respondent-authorities have omitted Sy.No.601-1 of Gollapalli village and that even though they have made several respondent-authorities in this regard, no action has been taken by them. the house properties of representations the petitioners He further submits that in view of acquisition of all the house properties in the village as well as the agricultural lands, most of the residents have migrated to different villages in Kadapa and Nellore Districts and settled down thereby constructing new houses with the compensation amounts received by them and that as the landed properties of the petitioners were already acquired by the respondent-authorities by paying compensation to them and as their house properties were not acquired by notification, they are forced to reside in the village where there is no livelihood for them. Hence, the petitioners initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the house properties of the petitioners and pay compensation therefor. respondent-authorities pursuant the respondent-authorities to direct submits Learned Government Pleader compensation was paid to the owners of the house properties but the structures belonging to the petitioners were not in existence at the time of issuance of 4(1) notification and they came into existence only after passing award and after payment of compensation to the owners of the house properties. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The main grievance of pursuant to the notification dated 8-2-1994 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while acquiring all the houses in the village, the respondent-authorities have omitted Sy.No.601-1 of Gollapalli village and that even though they have made several respondent-authorities in this regard, no action has been taken by them and hence, they seek to direct the respondent-authorities to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the house properties of the house properties of representations the petitioners the petitioners the petitioners and pay compensation therefor. I have perused copies of the Joint inspection Note, letters, supplementary inspection notes requisition, produced before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the same are placed on record. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of some of them as under. The Relevant portion of the Joint Inspection Note Sri P. Adinarayana, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-IV, Rajampet and Sri G.Subrahmanyam, Executive Engineer, Somasila Project Division No.IV, Atmakur dated 16-12-1995 reads as follows: “In joint inspection, we are thoroughly satisfied about the genuiness of their existence and we are of the firm opinion that these four structures also to be acquired and necessary compensation paid in due course as per rules.” The relevant portion of the letter dated 24-2-1996 the Special Deputy Collector, (L.A), addressed by Somasila Project Unit IV, Rajampet to the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project Division-4, Atmakur reads as follows: “Therefore, I request that the fresh requisition for the above structures may please be sent to this office giving house numbers from 196 onwards for taking necessary further action in the matter”. The relevant portion of the letter dated 13-3-1996 addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Special IV, Deputy Collector, Rajampet reads as follows: “With (L.A), Somasila Project Unit to S.D.C.(L.A.) S.P.Unit reference IV, Rajampet, Lr.No.cited, I transmit herewith supplement requisitions of (4) four missing structures for the village of Gollapalli, H/o Malinenipatnam, Atloor (M) Cuddapah as desired by you in your letter second cited for taking necessary action.” The relevant portion of the letter dated 27-10-1998 addressed by the Special Deputy Collector, Somasila Project, Unit IV, Rajampet to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore reads as follows: “Further I submit that I have inspected the structures on 13-10-1998 and find that the 4 missing structures are existing in the village site of Gollapalli village. All the 4 structures are bonafide residential structures. The details are mentioned in my inspection notes. “Hence, I submit herewith the D.N. and D.D.proposals for the 4 missing structures of Gollapalli village for kind perusal and approval.” The relevant portion of the letter dated 27-10-2000 addressed by the Special Deputy Collector, (FAC), the Special Somasila Project Unit-IV, Rajampet Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore reads as follows: “I have also inspected structures on 27-10-2000 and found that all the 4 missing structures are residential houses having one bore well in each house at present. The owner of the structure No.197 is only having ration card. All the names of the owners of structures are available in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat of Gollapalli village. A Photostat copy of the electoral roll is enclosed for favour of kind perusal.” “Hence, I submit that DN and DD proposals in respect of 4 missing structures for favour of approval and necessary action.” learned counsel and In this view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned Government Pleader and taking into consideration of the entire material on record, without going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it just and proper to direct the respondent-authorities petitioners and pass appropriate orders for initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. the case of to consider With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. Justice G.CHANDRAIAH ____________________ Dated 7-12-2012. Note: Issue C.C. in one week. BO. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13504 of 2007 Dated 7-12-2012

This is the original judgment text. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments