WP/26506/2011 of Vuluva Sunkanna, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action ofrespondent Nos.1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from theirlands in Sy.Nos.120/1 and 120/2 of Alamkonda Village, Krishnagiri Mandal,Kurnool District without following due process of law as contemplated underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of various extents ofland in Sy.Nos.120/1 and 120/2 of Alamkonda Village. They have pleadedthat in the year 2007 respondent No.2 acquired a part of their land for thepurpose of Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanthi project and that the remaining partof the land is continued to be in their possession. It is also their pleaded casethat while taking over their land, the respondents have paid small amounts ofcompensation and that recently respondent No.3 started construction of acompound wall around their remaining land. The petitioners alleged that theyhave approached respondent No.2 by insisting that unless their land isacquired by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act andcompensation is paid, the same shall not be acquired. As respondent No.3sought to proceed with the construction, the petitioners filed the present WritPetition.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector and LandAcquisition Officer (HNSS), Unit IV, Kurnool, respondent No.2, it is interaliastated that the land admeasuring Ac.10.34 cents in Sy.Nos.120/1A, 120/2A,120/1B, 120/2B and 120/3, which is the Government land, is in possessionand enjoyment of various persons as shown in the table given in paragraph 5of the counter affidavit, that notices for resumption of the Government land were issued on 30.04.2007 and 03.09.2007 to all the enjoyers informing themthat the land in their occupation is needed for HNSS Main Canal andPumping Station No.6 and that they shall produce their DKT pattas, if theyhave any claim for compensation. It is further stated that all enjoyers haveattended the enquiry, produced the relevant documents and agreed forreceiving the ex gratia amount and that accordingly those lands wereresumed vide proceedings dated 16.05.2005 and 11.09.2007 and handedover to the requisition department on 26.05.2007 and 18.09.2007. It is furtherstated that ex gratia amount was paid to all the enjoyers except petitionerNo.1, as he did not come forward to receive the same and hence, the samewas kept in revenue deposit. The details of amount of compensation andpayments have been given in page 6 of the counter affidavit. It is furtherstated that petitioner No.7 is neither an enjoyer nor having any right in theland resumed and that the requisition department might have handed overthe land to respondent No.2 for formation of pumping station No.6. On theabove premises, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have stated that the petitionershave no manner of right to claim the land having received the ex gratiaamount.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated thaton 07.11.2009 possession was delivered and sub-station was constructedand the same was commissioned on 02.10.2011.

No reply affidavit is filed controverting the abovementioned facts. Eventhough the petitioners have asserted that their lands are private lands, nodocuments in support thereof have been filed. On the contrary, respondentNos.1 and 2 have given the details of the Government land, which is inoccupation of the petitioners, passing of the resumption orders and receivingof ex gratia amount by the petitioners in lieu of the land taken over for thepurpose of HNSS works. If the petitioners were really aggrieved by takingover of land in the year 2007, they ought to have challenged the said action atthat time. Having allowed the land to be taken possession by receiving exgratia, it is not permissible for them to raise a dispute for the first time at thisstage. Respondent No.3 sought to utilize a part of the land for execution of the works.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a part of theland, which was purported to handover to respondent No.3, his clients haveraised paddy crop and that the same will be ripe for harvest in another 40days. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that they have noinstructions on this aspect. If the standing paddy crop is in existence, asclaimed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall permit them to harvest thesame. This direction shall not be understood as this Court authorizing thepetitioners to raise further crop or to interfere with the possession ofrespondent No.3, if the standing crop does not exist on ground.

For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the WritPetition and hence, the same is dismissed, subject to the direction givenhereinabove.

As a sequel, interim order, dated 21.09.2011, is vacated andWPMP.No.32704 of 2011 is dismissed and WVMP.Nos.4085 and 4120 of2011 are disposed of.

____________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J