Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sailajaksha Basu vs The State Of Ap on 4 July, 2019
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No. 605 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner filed this writ petition as Karta of Sri Rai Nalinaksha Basu Bahudur HUF assailing the inaction of the respondents in disposing of and non-consideration of various representations and letters submitted on 26.04.1990, 12.07.1993, 15.06.2016 and 16.06.2016 including letter/notice dated 30.07.2018 for survey and demarcation of the un-acquired land encroached by respondents, after major portion of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. was acquired out of Ac.8.28 ½ cents situated in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's great grandfather Sri Rai Nalinaksha Basu Bahadur had purchased the land extent Ac.8.28 ½ cents situated in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district in the year 1907. In the year 1959, a piece of land admeasuring 655.57 Sq. yards was leased out to Caltex petrol company (now, HPCL company) from the land purchased. The Chairman, Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam, later upgraded as Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (4th respondent), made a requisition for acquisition and development of vacant sites for constructions of houses for 2 lower and middle class income groups. In the year 1962, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued notification for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district along with other huge extent of land. During enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, late Pundarikaksha Basu and other family members had submitted objections on various grounds. The Chairman, Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam/4th respondent assured them to allot a developed site of about 1600 Sq. yards in the same area. The same was accepted by the then Karta of petitioner's family and they waived all their objections for acquisition of the land. Accordingly, the award vide Proceedings No.9/1996 dated 21.09.1966 was passed by awarding meager amount of compensation. Then, the petitioner submitted a representation on 26.04.1990 to the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 requesting them to demarcate the left out area of 1709.39 Sq. yards of the petitioner's land. After lot of persuasion and various representations, the 5th respondent issued a letter vide File No.RC.B9/1149/90 dated 14.06.1993 asking Bisalaksha Basu, the then Kartha of the family, to appear before the Assistant Director, District Maintenance Unit (Collectorate) along with all the records, etc. on 28.06.1993. The Town Surveyor demonstrated the boundaries of T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district. Due to some discrepancies in the demarcation, he made another 3 representation on 12.07.1993 to the 2nd respondent to provide details of survey conducted and show the boundaries of the land in possession of 1st respondent. The major portion of the acquired land is still vacant and undeveloped. Believing the words of the 4th respondent that they would be allotted developed site admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards after developing the land, no serious action has been taken by their ancestors. The respondents had encroached the petitioner's land and are in possession of the land without any acquisition as per law. When the respondents denied petitioner's entitlement of land, late Bisalaksha Basu along with other filed Writ Petition No.3666 of 2007. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed order. When the respondents not complied the order, they filed C.C.No.1320 of 2012 for non-compliance of the order in W.P.No.3666 of 2007. Then only, the respondents issued TDR upon execution of gift deed in the year 2013 in respect of the land effected in road widening programme. Sri Bisalaksha Basu who pursued the matter with the 4th respondent had died. The petitioner being a senior citizen staying in Calcutta could not pursue the authorities on regular basis due to advance age. In spite of several requests, the respondent kept silent over the issue without disposing of the representation. On representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2016 to the 2nd respondent, as per the directions of the authorities, the petitioner made payments vide challan on 16.06.2016. The petitioner has 4 been requesting the respondents to conduct survey of the land and allot land admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards as per the award.
3. The 4th impleaded respondent - Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority in place of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and mainly averred that the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. was acquired and award was also passed on 21.09.1966 vide Award No.9/1996 and possession was handed over on 29.10.1996 by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Visakhapatnam Municipality whose compensation of Rs.1,37,793.90 Ps. was awarded in the year 1966, not being satisfied the petitioner asked for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court, the Subordinate Judge, enhanced the amount in O.P.No.45/1967 to Rs.1,91,654.59 Ps. Inclusive of 15% solatium with interest @ 4% per annum. The petitioner submitted representation dated 26.04.1990 to the respondents 1,4 and 5 to demarcate the land admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards. But, nearly after 50 years of acquisition, the petitioner approached this Court for survey and demarcation of the land admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards alleged to be under encroachment by the respondents. The petitioner is aware of the developments over the years in the area and the land has become a major place for business and 5 bustling activities of commercial complexes, thus increase in the land values and prices. The petitioner has developed an eyesore and with an intention to cause impediment to the progress with an ulterior motive by suppressing the facts filed this writ petition. The writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioner approached this Court without properly explaining the delay. The delay is more than the limitation fixed for civil action. The petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the remedy. What the petitioner cannot achieve directly in Civil Court for recovery of possession more than the prescribed limitation of 12 years under Article 64 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. But, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief for which the petitioner is not entitled. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent - Municipal Corporation would contend that the petitioner approached this Court belatedly without proper explanation for the delay after 50 years of acquisition of the land. The writ petition is barred limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
5. Sri D.V.Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri H.Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the 6 petitioner on record, would contend that the respondents acquired petitioner's only land extent Ac.7.30310 sft. out of Ac.8.28 ½ cents situated in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam through award dated 21.09.1966 in award No.9/1966 along with house therein. The Special Tahsilar of Land Acquisition had taken possession of the land acquired and in turn handed over the possession of the acquired land on 29.10.1966 to the 4th respondent. But, the petitioner was not allotted developed plot admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards as per the award so far. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded meager amount of Rs.1,37,793.90 Ps. On reference, the reference Court enhanced the amount to Rs.1,91,654.59 Ps. along with other benefits as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the same was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.108 of 1976, and ultimately, the compensation amount was paid. After prolonged legal battle, the petitioner was issued TDR certificate in the year 2013 in respect of the land acquired for road as per the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in W.P.No.3666 of 2007 and to avoid contempt of court proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1320 of 2012. The respondents issued TDR upon execution of gift deed in the year 2013 in respect of the land affected in road widening programme. In spite of several oral and written representations by and on behalf of the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the land, the respondents have not 7 properly addressed the grievance of the petitioner and they simply kept quiet. The petitioner was forced to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. Now, the respondents filed counter taking all technical pleas, such as delay and latches only to defeat the petitioner's right to property enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to deprive the delivery of excess land in possession of the respondents. They never denied that the respondents were in occupation of the petitioner's land admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards over and above the acquired land. After having acquired the petitioner's land vide award No.9/1996 dated 21.09.1966 for payment of adequate compensation, the petitioner was driven to the Court of law and ultimately compensation was paid in the year 2013. Again, the petitioner mustered his strength at his fag end of his life to fight with the respondents to conduct survey and fix boundaries of the excess land in their illegal occupation. Hence, there is no delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. If the respondents have done their legitimate duty redressing the petitioner's grievance, the petitioner may not have approached this Court.
The learned counsel would further contend that the delay comes in the way only when third party rights are created during the so-called period of delay. Hence, the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner could not come in the way of redressal of petitioner's grievance. The major portion 8 of acquired land is vacant and undeveloped and the same is not utilized for the purpose for which it is acquired and some part of the land was developed for commercial purpose whereas the land was acquired for weaker sections housing. When it is factually undisputed that the land of the petitioner was acquired, there is no legal embargo on the respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of the petitioner's land in respondents' illegal occupation. The State cannot deprive the citizen his right to property without due process of law when the petitioner, senior citizen, tired of fighting in the Court of law against the respondents and during the interregnum period, no third party rights are accrued.
The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another Vs. G.Jayarama Reddy and others1, wherein it is held at Paras 25, 27 and 32 thus:
"25. Although, framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint, in last 61 years the superior Courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches. The principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallized and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court 1 (2011) 10 S.C.C. 608 9 after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts.
27. While dealing with the question of delay, this Court observed:
(Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. District Board, Bhojpur [(1992) 2 SCC 598]) "12. The question thus for consideration is whether the appellant should be deprived of the relief on account of the laches and delay. It is true that the appellant could have even when instituting the suit agitated the question of legality of the demands and claimed relief in respect of the earlier years while challenging the demand for the subsequent years in the writ petition. But the failure to do so by itself in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, does not disentitle the appellant from the remedies open under the law. The demand is per se not based on the net profits of the immovable property, but on the income of the business and is, therefore, without authority. The appellant has offered explanation for not raising the question of legality in the earlier proceedings. It appears that the authorities proceeded under a mistake of law as to the nature of the claim. The appellant did not include the earlier demand in the writ petition because the suit to enforce the agreement limiting the liability was pending in appeal, but the appellant did attempt to raise the question in the appeal itself. However, the Court declined to entertain the additional ground as it was beyond the scope of the suit. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed explaining all the circumstances.
The High Court considered the delay as inordinate. In our view, the High Court failed to appreciate all material facts particularly the fact that the demand is illegal as already declared by it in the earlier case.
13. The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. The decision in Tilokchand case relied on is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The levy if based on the net profits of the railway undertaking was beyond the authority and the illegal nature of the same has been questioned though belatedly in the pending proceedings after the pronouncement of the High Court in the matter relating to the subsequent years. That being the case, the claim of the appellant cannot be turned down on the sole ground of delay. We are of the opinion that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition in limine and refusing to grant the relief sought for."
10
32. Insofar as land of respondent No.1 is concerned, the same was advertised in 1987 along with other parcels of land (total measuring 5 acres) and Corporation executed lease in favour of M/s. Universal Resorts Limited in 1992. However, no material has been placed on record to show that the said exercise was undertaken after issuing notice to the landowners. When respondent No.1 discovered that his land has been transferred to private entity, he made grievance and finally approached the High Court. During the intervening period, he pursued his claim for higher compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was sleeping over his right and was guilty of laches." The petitioner's right to property cannot be denied on the ground of delay and latches by the State and its instrumentalities. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, could condone the delay when no prejudice is caused to the respondents. It is settled law that the respondents being a welfare State cannot deprive rights of its citizen by adverse possession. Where the public interest is involved and if third party rights are created during the interregnum period and after long lapse of cause of action accrued, filing the petition for redressal of grievance with enormous delay should be viewed seriously and the relief could have denied. But, in the present case, no third party rights are created in respect of the land, from the date of cause of action till the filing of the writ petition. The major part of the land is kept vacant and some part of the land acquired is put to some commercial purpose. The petitioner has tired in fighting before the Court of law for his rights, litigation after litigation against the State to get adequate compensation and the benefits under the land acquisition scheme. He was not allotted developed site as agreed in the 11 award enquiry for waived off his objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Now, the State is under illegal occupation of the land of the petitioner admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards over and above the acquired land. Only in the year 2013, the petitioner is able to get adequate compensation for the acquired land and got TDR benefit in the year 2013 as per the orders passed in W.P.No.3666 of 2007 after initiating contempt proceedings. Based on the above facts and circumstances, it could not be said that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. Hence, the plea of delay and latches merit no consideration. The petitioner is entitled for the relief sought in this writ petition to conduct survey and demarcate the land in the illegal occupation of the State. There is no grievance without redressal or remedy. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State is in unauthorized occupation of his land would be redressed by conducting survey and fixing the boundaries of the land as prayed in the writ petition as he pleaded that the respondents are in illegal occupation of the land to an extent of 1709.39 Sq. yards and that there is no denial of the same by the respondents. The respondents had taken only technical pleas and the same could not merit consideration.
6. Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent - Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, while reiterating the contents of the counter, stoutly opposed for grant of relief as 12 prayed for in the writ petition and mainly submits that the petitioner's land extent Ac.7.30310 sft. situated in T.S.No.85, Block No.10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district was acquired in the year 1966 and award No.9/1966 dated 21.09.1966 was passed and possession was handed over to the acquisition department on 29.10.1966, and the petitioner was paid adequate compensation. Hence, the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the land and that the petitioner was paid huge compensation of Rs.1,91,654.59 Ps. Inclusive of 15% solatium and interest @ 4% per annum from 29.10.1966 from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. After 50 years, the petitioner could not file the writ petition which is hopelessly barred by limitation for the relief of conducting survey and demarcating the land alleged to be in possession of the respondents over and above the acquired land. The petitioner is not diligent enough to pursue their right to property all these years. The petitioner cannot be indirectly allowed to get relief in this writ petition, which he could not get in Civil Court for recovery of possession. The limitation is 12 years under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indirectly for survey, etc. It is well settled law that the Courts have evolved self imposed restraints in enquiring into belated or stale claims. The present writ petition is filed after long lapse of passing of the 13 award on 21.09.1966. Now, the character of the land is changed. The petitioner could have approached within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action if at all violation of their constitutional and legal rights. The settled principle of law is that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be measured. When the delay is unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy and the delay is more than the prescribed period of limitation, it would always proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable.
Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his contention that this writ petition is hit by delay and latches. The learned counsel relied on the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a case of K.R.Shankar Singh Vs. The Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and three others2, wherein it is held at Para 9 thus:
"It is therefore clear that though no specific period of limitation has been provided under law, for institution of writ petition, they must be instituted within a reasonable time. Further, one, who is not vigilant 2 (2011) 10 S.C.C. 608 14 in seeking the intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or violation of constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to seek the indulgence of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. While invoking the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a delay, sufficient cause has to be shown and also give reasons explaining the delay in filing the Writ Petition."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and others3 held at Para 17 thus:
"At the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the special remedy provided in Art. 226 is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions. It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Art. 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Court rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it. Another is the nature of controversy of facts and law that may have to be decided as regards the availability of consequential relief. Thus, where, as in these cases, a person comes to the Court for relief under Art. 226 on the allegation that he has been assessed to tax under a void legislation and having paid it under a mistake is entitled to get it back, the court, if it finds that the assessment was void, being made under a void provision of law, and the payment was made mistake, is still not bound to exercise its discretion directing repayment. Whether repayment should be ordered in the exercise of this discretion will depend in each case on its own facts and circumstances. It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may however be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Again, where even if there is no such delay the Government or the statutory authority against whom the consequential relief is prayed for raises a prima facie triable issue as regard the availability of such relief on the merits on grounds like limitation, the Court should ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus for such payment. In both these kind of cases it will be sound use of discretion to leave the party to seek his remedy by the ordinary mode of action in a civil court and to refuse to exercise in his favour the extraordinary remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution."
The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a case of P.V.Narayana and others Vs. A.P.State 3 AIR 1964 SC 1006 15 Road Transport Corporation and others4 held at Paras 28 and 29 thus:
"28. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar's case also no doubt held that the rule which says that the Court not inquire into belated and stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition and each case must depend upon its own facts. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit and it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right or the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. However, the Constitution Bench clearly held that each case must depend on its own facts and as held in Tilokchand's case it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. The matter relates to promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. The Supreme Court interfered in the said case because on facts it was found that there were no unified rules of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector and that promotions that were being made by the State Government were only provisional, to be regularized when unified rules of recruitment were made. The view expressed in Tilokchand and Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar's case was approved by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries case.
29. The Supreme Court held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Though the provisions of Limitation Act have no application to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed the High Court would be justified to deny the relief. In our opinion, in cases where an order is not sustainable in law and where the party has approached the court within a reasonable period of time, then, it would be in the fairness of things that the delay is condoned. But, it is not that in all other cases the Court should decline the relief. As already held, it is always open to the Court to grant the relief where the party has been able to explain the delay."
It is well settled law that where third party rights are created during the interregnum period, prejudice is caused to third parties in possession of the land and the delay merits consideration. In the case on hand, no third party rights are created and the State is in illegal occupation of the land. Hence, the aforesaid case-laws have no help to the case of the 4 AIR 1964 SC 1006 16 respondents. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner's only land along with bungalow extent Ac.7.30310 sft. was acquired out of the land extent Ac.8.28 ½ cents which was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1907 and award No.9/1966 was passed on 21.09.1966 after petitioner waived their grounds of objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on the assurance given to the petitioners that they would allot developed site admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards. For the acquired land, the petitioner was awarded meager amount of Rs.1,37,793.90 Ps., but the reference Court enhanced the amount to Rs.1,91,654.59 Ps. in the O.P.No.45 of 1967 by the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, inclusive of 15% solatium along with interest @ 4% per annum on the remaining balance amount after deducting the amount which was paid as per the award. The respondents also preferred A.S.No.108 of 1976 and the same was disposed of on 31st March, 1981, but the petitioner could only realized the amounts in the year 2013.
8. The petitioner was given TDR and gift deed was executed in the year 2013 as per the orders passed in W.P.No.3666 of 2007 only to avoid the contempt of court 17 proceedings in C.C.No.1320 of 2012. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is pursuing with the respondent authorities for allotment of developed plot admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards as per the award as assured by the 4th respondent and for survey and demarcation of the excess land over and above 1709.39 Sq. yards of acquired land, for delivery of the same which is in illegal occupation of the respondents. The respondents had not conducted survey properly and fixed the boundaries of excess land of the petitioner in possession of the respondents. However, an attempt was made in the year 1993 by the respondents to survey the land and to fix the boundaries as per the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.1990, but the same was not properly done when the petitioner asked for the details of the survey and the same was not given, and thereafter no boundaries of the land could be fixed. The petitioner having lost their only land and building in the acquisition, left the Waltair and settled in Calcutta, and hence he could not regularly pursue the matters due to acquisition of his only source of income from the land was lost. All these years the petitioner fought the litigation in the court of law to get adequate compensation for his acquired land. The petitioner tired in fighting the litigation in the Court of law against the respondents and now he has become senior citizen. Only after receiving the compensation, the petitioner financially improved and filed this writ petition, which could not be said to be suffered from 18 delay and latches. This Court found that still major part of the land is vacant and no third party rights are created during the interregnum period from the date of payment of compensation and the cause of action arose for the petitioner to file this writ petition for survey and demarcation of the petitioner's land, which is under encroachment of the respondents. This Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court for demarcation and fixation of boundaries of the excess land over and above the acquired land which is in possession of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has not specifically denied the possession of excess land in its possession.
9. This Court, while exercising its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice, felt it appropriate to direct the respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of the petitioner's excess land over and above the acquired land which was in the possession of the respondents. As could be seen from the survey map and T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district, the respondents are in possession of the land extent Ac.7.70 cents in T.S.No.85/1A (sub-division of T.S.No.85) and whereas acquired land is Ac.7.30310 sft.
10. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to conduct survey and 19 fix the boundaries by demarcating the land of the petitioner, which is under encroachment and illegal possession of the respondents over and above the acquired land basing on the acquisition map. It is needless to observe that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents' rights over the land in their possession by mere conduct of survey and fixing the boundaries of the land. The respondents are directed to complete the above exercise of survey and demarcation within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO 04-07-2019 anr 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO Writ Petition No. 605 of 2019 04-07-2019 anr