G.Malla Reddy v. The & Ors.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26229 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Koutala village and Mandal in Adilabad District. Statedly, he is owner of land admeasuring Acs.4.68 cents in survey No.211 of the said village. He alleges that in 1997, respondents 1 and 2 forcibly took possession of Acs.1.00 cents of land out of Acs.4.68 cents for laying road from Koutala to Tatinagar village. The petitioner then got issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 calling upon land and pay respondents take necessary steps for acquiring compensation to petitioners, in vain. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking appropriate writ of Mandamus. First respondent filed counter affidavit (sworn to on 19.08.2002). It is the case of first respondent that petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.4.68 in survey No.211 from Bapa Goud, S/o Nana Goud. Even by the date of said purchases, there was a cart track existing in the land leading to Tatinagar ‘Prajala Vaddakupalana’ and ‘Sramadanam’ Schemes, the road was laid on the existing cart track.

While denying the allegation that the land of petitioner immemorial and during the programme was occupied forcibly, first respondent states that there is no necessity to acquire land. On 09.09.2002, this Court having regard to the counter averments gave liberty to first respondent to file an additional affidavit after verifying the village map as to whether road in question was existing in the village maps prepared by competent authority. In obedience thereto, first respondent filed additional counter affidavit (sworn to on 16.10.2002) enclosed the location sketch showing the cart track formation of road from Koutala to Tatinagar village. With reference to the specific query of this Court in proceedings, dated 09.09.2002, it is stated as below. programmes “Prajalavaddaku Palana” During the year 1996, the petitioner herein purchased the said land through a Registered Sale Deed. Even at the time of purchase by the petitioner there was existing cart track running through Sy.Nos.19, 20, 2, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26/P, 203, 204, 205, 206, 210, 211 and 212.

The contention of the petitioner that road was laid through Sy.No.211 alone is not correct and misconceived. The fact remains that road was laid through all the above said Survey Numbers during the year 1997 with the consent of all land owners during “Sramadanam” and knowing fully well that the formation of the above said road is being done through the petitioner’s land in the existing cart track, the petitioner never objected for it and as such it is not open to the petitioner now to claim for compensation. As already stated in the counter affidavit filed earlier the said road was laid by the Panchayat Raj Department without the knowledge of the Revenue Department. Though we have no knowledge about the laying of the said road in pursuance of the notice issued by this Hon’ble Court, after due enquiry in the village we came to know that there was existing cart track since more than 40 years, but the same was not shown in the village map.

But all the elders of village have unanimously accepted that there was existing cart track since 1960 and during the year 1997 the said cart track was strengthened by formation of earthwork by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department with beneficiaries of the road. Though the said cart track is passing through various lands none of the land holders objected and did not approach any Court of law since the said road was formed with the consent of all the land owners. the participation of villagers who are From the above averment, two aspects cannot be disputed. The petitioner did not give consent. There was no cart track shown in the village map and according to village elders, cart track exists in the land from 1960. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, contends that as the cart track existed from 1347F, it may not have been shown in the village map and that by itself cannot lead to an inference to the absence of cart track.

The submission cannot however be accepted. Along with counter affidavit, the location map is enclosed showing the formation of road from Koutala to Tatinagar. No authentic copy of field map or village map is filed before this Court. In the additional counter, first respondent admits that village map does not show any cart track. This itself supports the contention of petitioner that land of petitioner to an extent of about Acs.0.68 cents was utilized by respondent for laying the road from koutala to Tatinagar. This certainly violates constitutional right under Article 300A of Constitution of India and needs to be set right. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing third respondent to initiate proposals for acquisition of land admeasuring Acs.0.68 cents in survey No.211 of Koutala village belonging to petitioner and pay compensation in accordance with law. This action may be initiated and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

27.08.2009