Telangana High Court
WP/35141/2012 of P.Hanumanthu Vs The Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary Revenue on 31 December 2012
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35141 of 2012 Date: 31.12.2012 Between: P.Hanumanthu and 20 others. ..... Petitioners And: The Govt of A.P., Reptd., by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.35141 of 2012
Between:
Date: 31.12.2012
P.Hanumanthu and 20 others.
And:
..... Petitioners
The Govt of A.P., Reptd., by its Secretary,Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department,Hyderabad and three others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Vishnu Vardhana ReddyCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3: AGP for LandAcquisition Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 4: GP for Irrigation andCAD
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The lackadaisical approach of the Revenue andIrrigation Departments of the Government of AndhraPradesh has resulted in deprivation of compensation tothe petitioners in respect of lands in Survey Nos.742,743, 750, 751 and 752 of Manthangode Village, whichadmittedly came under submergence under new tankacross Vulli Vadu as far back as the year 1986. Eventhough the petitioners have been running from pillar topost for payment of compensation, the respondents obviously caught in their own procedural wrangles havefailed to initiate acquisition proceedings for the last 25years, as a result of which, the petitioners have beendenied payment of compensation.
In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer,Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District, he has sought toexplain the reasons for non-initiation of acquisitionproceedings and non-payment of compensation tothe petitioners. The purport of the counter-affidavit is tothe effect that as there was variation in the assessmentof extents of lands initially made and later found, the landacquisition proceedings could not be initiated. It iseventually stated that the Executive Engineer(IB),Mahabubnagar, has been requested to send revisedrequisition in Forms-I and II and sketch map as per thesub-division records and deposit an amount ofRs.40,82,200/- towards land compensation and paperpublication charges, vide respondent No.3’s letter, dated16.05.2007.
From the contents of the counter-affidavit referredto above, it is evident that the petitioners are in no wayresponsible for the failure of the respondents in initiatingland acquisition proceedings. If at all, it is solely due tothe inability of the respondents to make properassessment of the extents of lands which came undersubmergence. The petitioners cannot be allowed tosuffer on account of the inertia and inefficiency of therespondents. By constructing a tank making thepetitioners’ lands submerged thereunder, withoutinitiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the respondents have violatedthe mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.The grave injustice done to the petitioners can be redressed by directing the respondents to forthwithinitiate land acquisition proceedings by fixing the marketvalue as on date of publication of notification asenvisaged under the ‘first’ limb of Section 23 of the Act.The respondents shall extend all the benefits providedunder the provisions of the Act to the petitioners. Theyshall complete the entire acquisition process includingpayment of compensation to the petitioners within threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costsof Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only).
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.44648 of 2012 filed by the petitioners forinterim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
____________________________
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY
31[st] January 2012DR