Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Parachuru Venkatakrishnama ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh ... on 5 December, 2014
Author: A.V.Sesha Sai
Bench: A.V.Sesha Sai
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.27853 of 2009
05-12-2014
Parachuru Venkatakrishnama Naidu,S/o. Munaswamy Naidu, aged about 79 years,
Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Racharla Village,Varadayyapalem Mandal, Chittoor
District.Petitioner
The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Land
Acquisition, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.V.Muni Reddy y
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: G.P for Land Acquisition.
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri P.Roy Reddy
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.27853 of 2009
Date :05.12.2014
O R D E R:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.2-36 cents in Sy.No.5-12, under patta No.100, Chengambakkam Village Accounts, Varadayyapalem Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently the respondents be directed to pay the compensation, solatium etc., with interest to the petitioner forthwith.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owned the ancestral property of wetland admeasuring Ac.2-36 cents situated in Sy.No.5-12, Patta No.100 of Chengambakam village accounts, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds as per Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for brevity ROR Act). On a request made by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for brevity APIIC), fourth respondent herein for acquisition of the land for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone), the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for brevity 1884 Act) were pressed into service and the authorities took possession of the said property along with other lands.
3. In the above background, complaining failure to pay the compensation on the part of the respondents, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
4. This Court, issued Rule Nisi on 22.12.2009 and responding to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District/third respondent herein on his behalf and also on behalf of the second respondent/District Collector, Chittoor District, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5. It is stated in the said counter that after publishing 4 (1) notification and draft declaration under Section 6 on 18.03.2006 and 10.11.2006 in the State Gazette Extraordinary respectively, award enquiry was conducted from 16.12.2006 to 26.12.2006 after service of notices on the persons interested under Sections 9 and 10 of 1984 Act and the award was passed vide Award No.69/2007 dated 18.03.2007 and the amounts were also paid.
6. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 apart from perusing the material available before this Court.
7. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
7.1. The impugned land acquisition proceedings which eventually culminated in the consent award passed by the District Collector to the extent of the land of the petitioner are highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
7.2. The impugned proceedings are opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of 1894 Act.
7.3. The failure on the part of the authorities in not issuing notices and failure to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing of a consent award under Section 11 (2) of 1984 Act and payment of compensation to the persons who failed to produce any evidence in support of their title and right in the property are arbitrary and preposterous. 7.4. The payment of compensation by way of consent award in favour of ineligible persons despite receipt of legal notice dated 16.09.2006 got issued by the petitioner is highly illegal and highhanded.
8. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent:
8.1. The impugned proceedings are in accordance with the provisions of 1894 Act and there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned proceedings, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8.2. The respondent authorities initiated the land acquisition proceedings and conducted and finalized the same in the form of impugned award by strictly adhering to the mandatory provisions of 1894 Act, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8.3. Having failed to participate in the proceedings and having failed to put forth his claim, petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8.4. Only after thorough enquiry the compensation amounts were paid, as such, there is no illegality.
8.5. Petitioner was not in possession of the property and as per the village accounts the lands stood registered in the name of one Sri M.Jayarami Reddy.
9. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this court are Whether the impugned proceedings are sustainable and tenable? and Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
10. Right to property is a constitutional right, as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which, in vivid and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of or divested of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory legislation which authorises and empowers the State to acquire the private properties of the citizens without reference to their consent, as such, the provisions of the said enactment are required to be strictly adhered to and meticulously followed and any failure to do the same would undoubtedly render the proceedings invalid.
11. The issue in the present writ petition needs examination in the light of the said constitutional and statutory mandates. The information available before this Court reveals that the District Collector, Chittoor District issued a draft notification under Section 4 (1) of 1984 Act, proposing to acquire the lands including the subject lands situated in Sy.No.5-12, Patta No.100, Chengambakkam village, Varadayyapalem Mandal, Chittoor District, for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park on the requisition made by the APIIC. By invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of 1984 Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with and subsequently, the District Collector issued draft declaration under Section 6 of 1984 Act. In the draft declaration dated 18.03.2006 as against the present Sy.No.5-12 as against pattadars and enjoyers columns the names of one Mr.Jayarami Reddy and Munaswamy Naidu were shown. In the draft declaration dated 10.11.2006, as against Sy.No.512-A and B, the names of Malla Jayarami Reddy and Pemmasani Venkata Krishna Naidu were shown against pattadar column and names of Ariboina Muniraj, Panduri Munichandraiah, Vanka Srinivasulu, Jagga Venkateshu and Pemmasani Venkata Krishnama Naidu were shown.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property is his ancestral property and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his favour under the provisions of ROR Act in the year 1999 and despite the same, the respondent authorities did not issue any notices nor afforded any opportunity to him and passed the award and paid the compensation to ineligible persons who have neither title nor right in the subject property. For enforcement and effective implementation of the constitutional mandates and the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the legislature makes the laws obviously keeping in view the welfare of the citizens and for protection of their rights. Therefore, there is sanctity for the same and the authorities functioning under the statutes are expected to respect the same and to discharge the statutory functions in a transparent manner.
13. In the instant case, there is absolutely no controversy with regard to the reality that the revenue authorities, evidently after holding enquiry under the provisions of ROR Act, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1999 and a copy of the same is also filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the writ petition. In the said documents, the extent of the land shown is Ac.2-36 cents and the genuineness of the same remains undisputed by the respondents herein.
14. Coming to the mode and the manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer conducted the award enquiry, the record produced by the learned Government Pleader on the directions of the Court manifestly reveals that even though the revenue records such as pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities under the provisions of ROR Act are standing in the name of the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer completely and totally ignored the same and without serving any notice under Sections 9 and 10 of 1894 Act on the petitioner, proceeded with the proceedings, and while recording that the persons attended before him could not produce any evidence in support of their right and title, peculiarly paid the compensation in favour of those who could not produce any evidence in support of their claim by passing the consent award No.69/2007 dated 18.03.2007 under Section 11 (2) of 1984 Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, this procedure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is unknown to law and is highhanded, preposterous, iniquitous and presumptuous and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in utter derogation and disregard of the provisions of 1894 Act. The quasi judicial authorities, functioning under 1984 Act should necessarily be transparent in their actions and should not give any scope for criticizing their conduct in discharging their statutory functions otherwise the people lose faith in the democratic system which would never be in the interest of our nation. The approach and actions of the statutory and quasi judicial authorities shall be in the direction of creating and inspiring confidence and faith in the minds of the people in the system. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer by completely giving a go-by and in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of the legislation and in a procedure unknown and alien to law, conducted the proceedings and passed the consent award and paid the compensation to the persons who did not admittedly place any material before the Land Acquisition officer in support of their right and title to the property. The Land Acquisition Officer totally ignored the revenue records, standing admittedly in the name of the petitioner. This conduct on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer is highly reprehensible and liable to be deprecated and cannot be approved. At the same time, this Court cannot remain as silent spectator for the said preposterous conduct. Therefore, though the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not challenged in the writ petition, this Court taking into consideration the material available on record is inclined to mould the relief and invalidate the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 (2) of 1984 Act.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the Award No.A-69/2007 dated 18.03.2007 passed by the third respondent Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District to the extent of the subject property. Consequently, the respondents are directed to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and conclude the same by giving opportunity to the petitioner herein, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the Government shall be at liberty to recover the amounts from the concerned persons. It is further made clear that immediately after conclusion of the proceedings now directed to be initiated, if it is found that the petitioner herein is entitled for compensation, the same shall be paid to him immediately without waiting for any action as indicated above. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J Date:05.12.2014