Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

This Writ Petition Is Filed ... vs Patta Of Land. Learned Counsel For ... 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

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

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

(2020) 8 SCC 129

(2020) 2 SCC 569

2022 (2) SCC 9

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

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

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