WP/12535/1996 of C. Venkata Rayaju Dhaveji Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2006

Conclusion

ORDER:

1. This writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to therespondents to fix up and pay compensation for deprivation of the property ofan extent of Ac.0.18 cents of land situated in R.S.No.325/7 of KalipatnamVillage, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District after declaring the action ofthe respondents in acquiring the said land without following the due processof law as bad.

2. The writ petitioner asserts that his father-in-law was the absolute ownerof land in Survey No.325 of Kalipatnam Village of Mogaltur Mandal in WestGodavari District and that without following the procedure contemplatedunder the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), the respondents havetaken possession of land of an extent of Ac.0.18 cents belonging to his father-in-law and laid an approach road thereon. The writ petitioner asserts that theoriginal owner died on 26-01-1996 and before his death he executed a Willon 27-03-1995 while being in a sound state of mind and dispositionbequeathing in his favour certain properties of which the land concerning thiswrit petition is one such. The writ petitioner asserts that the land in questionis a very valuable land and it has been unjustly taken possession of by therespondents for formation of an approach road without following the dueprocess of law. The writ petitioner would further assert that in fact, the original owner had put the State and the Superintending Engineer of Roadsand Buildings Department at Eluru on notice demanding recovery ofpossession of the property and for damages, while he was alive. The writpetitioner has also asserted that in spite of receiving the said notice, therespondents have not reacted in any manner.

3. Though the writ petition has been pending in this court from 1996onwards, at long last, the Superintending Engineer, (Roads and Buildings),Eluru Circle, had filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 18-11-2006. TheSuperintending Engineer asserts that Kalipatnam village was an estatevillage which was taken over in terms of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948 andthat the Survey and Settlement Operations were not completed resultantlyRyotwari pattas are not issued to the Ryots and when the land in questionhas been verified physically, the bitumen top road formed by the department on the left bank of Kaalipatnam canal is strictly laid and confined to theGovernment land alone. Therefore, in the counter affidavit, it is suggested thatthe claim made by the writ petitioner seeking compensation for a land, whichhas not been acquired at all does not arise.

4. The writ petitioner had filed a rejoinder ( reply affidavit) disputing thecorrectness of the statements made in the counter affidavit. The writ petitionerhas placed a communication dated 19-07-1996 issued by the ExecutiveEngineer (Roads & Buildings) Division, Bheemavaram, which inter aliastates as follows:

“ As enquired from the local public in the Kalipatnam (V) it was learnt that a small piece of land in R.S.No.325/7 was given tothis department for formation of Road from Mogaltur toBhimavaram (via) Kalipatnam. It was also informed by thevillagers of the Kalipatnam that the then owner of the above landSri Sistla Pitchayya had voluntarily given the said piece of land for forming the Road along with other Ryots also in the interestof formation of new road. But, there is no information available inthis office in this regard due to loss of records during 12/88.”

5. The writ petitioner in response to the above communication dated 19-07-1996 of the Executive Engineer has disputed the claim that the originalland owner has voluntarily surrendered the land belonging to him forformation of road in question.

6. Be that as it may, during the course of hearing, the learned counselfor the writ petitioner has brought to my notice that the writ petitioner hadsubmitted a representation to the District Collector, West Godavari at Elurusuggesting to him that the bridge constructed across the Kalipatnam canal,for approaching which the land belonging to the Principal of the writ petitionerhas been taken possession of without payment of compensation, be namedafter his father-in-law. The writ petitioner has also pointed out the public spiritexhibited and the services rendered by the Principal land holder. Therefore,the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would urge that if the DistrictAdministration considers the entire question raised by him in hisrepresentation dated 23-12-2006 favourably, the issue relating to acquisitionof the property belonging to the Principal of the writ petitioner withoutfollowing the due process of law need not be considered at all. The learnedGovernment Pleader for Roads and Buildings would, per contra, plead that inview of the conflicting factual situation emerging from the communicationaddressed by the Executive Engineer on 19-07-1996 and the present counteraffidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer, the District Administrationwould certainly consider the representation submitted on 23-12-2006 bythe petitioner and that an appropriate decision in the matter would be taken.

7. I hope and trust that the entire issue could be consideredsympathetically, in view of the emerging fact that possibly the land belongingto the Principal of the writ petitioner may have been acquired for formation ofthe approach road to the bridge that got constructed across the Kalipatnamcanal long back and a decision can be taken in this regard within threemonths from the date of receipt of this order. The decision be communicatedto the writ petitioner. A copy of the representation said to have beensubmitted by the writ petitioner to the District Collector of West Godavari on23-12-2006 has been kept on record of this case.

8. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

________________________

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

29-12-2006Stp