Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chitti Reddy Narayana Reddy vs State Of A.P., Revenue Department And ... on 5 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALT250
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to have protection under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-31 gts. in S. No. 18 of Begumpet village.
2. The land was acquired for extension of Hyderabad Air Port along with other lands. According to the petitioner, in those proceedings one Padnabham Swamy Gumadvalli was issued notice as Pattadar and though he was declared as protected tenant on 11-2-1950, very much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), no notice whatsoever was issued to him and compensation was paid only to the pattadar. He says that being an illiterate he could not take any legal steps against the respondents. His rights as protected tenant did net get extinguished and therefore he is entitled to get back the land in question. With that view he approached the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition seeking a certified copy of the award. The request was turned out on the ground that the award was passed by the Collector, Hyderabad on 16-3-1950 and therefore the copy is not available. The petitioner was also advised to approach the District Collector, Rangareddy District. When he approached Ranga Reddy District Collectorate, he received the similar response. Thereafter he again approached the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer whereupon he was issued a memo dated 17-4-1996 advising him to take appropriate action under Section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner therefore is before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of the land in S. No. 18 admeasuring Ac.2-31 gts. and for a consequential direction to put the petitioner in possession.
3. The petitioner claims to be a protected tenant under the Tenancy Act by reason of an occupancy certificate allegedly granted to him on 16-3-1950. In the absence of an occupancy certificate on record, it is not safe to record any finding on this. Be that as it may, even according to the petitioner an award under the Act was passed more than five decades ago and possession was taken after duly serving notice on Padnabham Swamy, who was the pattadar, it is doubtful whether the petitioner can still be conferred with the rights under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act having regard to the clear language of explanation to Section 38-E(1). As the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition issued notice to the Pattadar and obtained possession in the absence of any tenancy certificate in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is dispossessed otherwise than in the manner and by order of the Tahsildar as provided under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. In these proceedings, therefore, no declaration as prayed for can be granted.
4. Further, when the land was acquired in 1950, though he is an illiterate, petitioner opened up to the realities only on 12-1-1993 when he got issued legal notice. Further, when he was moving from one office to another to get a copy of the award, finally the Mandal Revenue Officer on 17-4-1996 advised him to invoke the provisions of the Tenancy Act. These glaring facts would indicate that at every stage the petitioner did not claim or enforce his alleged rights as protected tenant. It is apposite in this context to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digamber, . In the said case, the Government of Maharashtra acquired lands in 1971-72 duly paying compensation. In 1991, an agriculturist of one village filed a writ petition before Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the Government of Maharashtra to grant compensation to him for the alleged utilisation of his land by the Government. As many as 191 similar writ petitions were also filed. A Division Bench of Bombay High Court, directed the Collector to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation to all the villagers whose lands were allegedly utilised in 1971-72. In Civil Appeal in one case at the instance of State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court not only set aside the order in the concerned writ petition but also annulled all other judgments rendered by the High Court. The following observations demand excerption.
.........undue delay or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily.......Since we have held earlier that the person seeking grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if it be against the State, is required to satisfy the High Court that he was not guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching it for relief, need a-rises for us to consider whether the respondent in the present appeal (writ petitioner in the High Court) who had sought for relief of compensation on the alleged infringement of his legal right, had satisfied the High Court that he was not guilty of undue delay or laches in approaching it for relief. The allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition, as becomes clear from the judgment under appeal, was that although a certain extent of his land was taken away in the year 1971-72 by the agency of the State for the scarcity relief road works undertaken by the State Government in the year 1971-72,........
The effect of delay and laches on writ jurisdiction is too well settled and axiomatic. This judgment need not be burdened with copious extracts from the reported judgments. Given some latitude that the petitioner is an illiterate, even then the lapse cannot be condoned and this Court cannot reopen the concluded land acquisition proceedings after long lapse of 50 years. If the law of limitation permits and if his rights as tenant and holder of the land did not get extinguished as per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the tenancy case which according to him is already filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal.
5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No costs.