Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition Is Filed Claiming ... vs Patta Of Land. Learned Counsel For The ... on 5 August, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.5255 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed claiming compensation for the land measuring Ac.7.06 cents in Gudnavolu Village in Sy.No.478 which was acquired as per the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner as articulated by Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subject land was acquired for the Telugu Ganga project in 1992 itself. He draws the attention of this Court to a copy of award No.14/91-92 dated 30.01.1992, wherein he states that the entire extent of Ac.7.06 cents in Sy.No.478 is acquired. He also points out that while ascertaining the true nature of the land, in the second page of the award, it was found that Ac.7.06 cents is DKT Patta land. A clarification was sought from the Special Collector regarding payment of compensation for the said land. The clarification was awaited by that date and therefore, the compensation was not granted for the particular Patta of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that subsequently, the petitioner kept on corresponding with the respondents. He relies upon the documents which are filed as material papers to show that he has been agitating his rights since then and claiming compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that W.P.No.4669 of 2017 was filed by him and that High Court directed him to submit a 2 representation. Thereafter, on 18.01.2019, it is clarified by the Special Deputy Collector that the claim for compensation could not be given as the land is classified as the dotted land in RSR. He was also given an option to file From-III before the Tahsildar to enter the name of the petitioner in the RSR. Learned counsel argues that the Andhra Pradesh Dotted Lands (Updation in Re- settlement Register) Act, 2017 will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said Act was made for the purpose of correcting the entries in the revenue records. He also points out that along with this land another extent of Ac.4.20 cents in Sy.No.474/2 was also acquired. This is the subject matter of W.P.No.11333 of 2013. By filing a copy of the order, learned counsel argues that the respondent authorities gave a scheme for the acquisition of the said land. The learned single Judge after considering the submissions directed the respondents to complete the acquisition of the subject land and payment of compensation within a period of four months. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also similarly placed as both the lands are covered by the same award. He states that an order in line with WP.No.11333 of 2013 can be passed in this writ petition also.
Learned Government Pleader on the other hand argues in line with the counter. He points out that the land measuring Ac.7.06 cents is classified as dotted land. He also agrees that W.P.No.4669 of 2017 was filed and in obedience to the orders of this Court, the respondents have given a notice to the petitioner and rejected his case in compliance with the orders passed. He 3 also points out that the petitioner has not filed any proof to show that the subject lands were allotted prior to 1954 and therefore learned Government Pleader argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any claim. He also raises an issue of delay and argues that in view of the inordinate delay, this Court should reject the case of the petitioner. He relies upon the Full Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal1 in support of his contention.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 and Sukh Dutt Ratra & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. He points out that in both these judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that merely because some delay occurred, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the payment of compensation. It is argued that the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation and it must be strictly construed particularly as valuable property rights of the petitioner have been extinguished. Lastly, he points out that while delay in laches are a ground for refusing relief, there is no specific provision provided under the Constitution of India to exercise jurisdiction by this Court.
This Court after considering the submissions notices that initial plea of the Government as can be seen from the award 1 (2020) 8 SCC 129 2 (2020) 2 SCC 569 3 2022 (2) SCC 9 4 itself is that the land measuring Ac.7.06 cents is patta land. This is so mentioned in the award itself. Thereafter, this is clarified that out of Ac.51.40 cents of land acquired, Ac.7.06 cents in Sy.No.478 along with three other survey numbers were not included in the award since it was found that they are DKT patta lands granted prior to 1954. Therefore, the contents of the award itself clearly show that the land in question measuring Ac.7.06 cents in Sy.No.478 is DKT patta land which was allotted prior to 1954. This is the stand taken in the award. This fact is not disputed later.
In the counter affidavit filed, it is however stated that this land is shown as dotted land. The endorsement given to the petitioner on 18.01.2019 clearly states that the petitioner filed his claim in Form No.III before the Tahsildar. In addition, this Court also notices that for another bit of land measuring Ac.4.20 cents in Sy.No.474/2, covered by the same award, the respondent-State has appeared before this Court. During the course of hearing in WP.No.11333 of 2013, Government gave a proposal for acquisition of the land. They sought for 270 days to complete the procedure, but the Court directed them to furnish the procedure in all respects within four months. The petitioner is also similarly placed. Denying him this relief would amount to discrimination.
The last issue that survives is about the question of delay. The Full Bench decision and in particular, the particular paragraph relied upon by the learned Government Pleader 5 relates to the case where the acquisition is already concluded. The Court also noticed that once the infrastructure has been created or has been developed, the matter cannot be reversed. The issue of delay in the case was considered against the backdrop of these facts. At the same time, this Court also has to notice the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in particular the decision in Vidya Devi's case (2 supra), which is a leading authority on the issue of delay and failure to pay compensation. After considering the law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote a justice, and not defeat it.
This was also followed in a latter judgment in Sukh Dutt Ratra's case (3 supra), which also considered the law on the subject and the deprivation of property. This judgment also followed Vidya Devi's case (2 supra). The petitioner in this case has been following up with the authorities. He has already 6 filed a writ petition which is mentioned earlier. It is not a case of absolute neglect/delay. The petitioner based upon legal advice was pursuing his claim in his own manner, but it cannot be said that he has totally slept over his rights. The finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi's case (2 supra) is also a factor, which is weighing with this Court. This Court finds that the demand for justice is so overwhelming in this case; that the writ petition should be allowed. The authorities who are denying the petitioner's case have appeared before the learned single Judge in WP.No.11333 of 2013 and agreed to acquire the land which was covered by the very same award which is the subject matter of the present dispute.
This Court is therefore of the opinion that the petitioner who is also similarly placed is entitled to a relief as prayed for in line with the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP.No.11333 of 2013.
This writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to complete the acquisition of the subject land and payment of the compensation within a period of four months from today and in terms of Act 30 of 2013. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date : 05.08.2022 KLP