Dasari Venkatanna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 980 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION NO.30776 OF 2018
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the damages in the award No.6/2016-17 date 02.02.2017 for the acquired lands of the petitioners from the date of dispossession i.e. the dated 02.06.1989 till the date of notification i.e. 04.07.2016 is as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and contrary to section 28 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violation of Article 21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to pay the damages to the acquired lands of the petitioners as shown in the award No.6/2016-2017 from 02.06.1989 date of dispossession till 04.07.2016 the date of notification 02.02.2017 pursuant to the representation dated 27.07.2018 made by the petitioners."

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No.1

possessed an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.1344/1, petitioner

No.2 possessed an extent of Ac.4-36 cents in Sy.No.1363/1,

petitioner No.3 possessed an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1357/2,

petitioner No.4 possessed an extent Ac.4-15 cents in Sy.No.1423/A2,

petitioner No.5 possessed an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1352,

petitioner No.6 possessed an extent of Ac.4.15 cents Sy.No.1423/A1

and petitioner No.7 also possessed an extent of

Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1354/1 in Mittamanipalli village, Mydukur Mandal,

Kadapa District, as the said lands were assigned to them in the year

1979 and ever since they have been cultivating the said land. While

they were cultivating the land, their lands were proposed to be

acquired under Telugu Ganga Project in the year 1989 and the

respondents took possession of the property on 21.12.1995 and the MSM,J WP_30776_2018

same is evident from the letter addressed by respondent No.4 to

respondent No.3.

Subsequently, in the year 2016, respondent No.2 issued

notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act 30 of 2013) dated 04.07.2016

acquiring their lands and thereafter declaration was made under

Section 19(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 on 31.10.2016. Pursuant to the

said declaration dated 31.10.2016, respondent No.3 passed an

award No.6/2016-17 dated 02.02.2017 fixing compensation for the

acquired land under Section 26 and 30 of the Act.

Respondents have taken possession on 02.06.1989 and the

same is evident from the letter dated 21.12.1985 addressed by

respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 and the acquisition proceedings

were initiated in the year 2016 i.e. on 04.07.2016, but respondent

No.3 has failed to award the damages sustained by the petitioners

from the date of taking possession till the date of issuance of

notification under Section 11(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 despite the

representation of the petitioners dated 27.07.2018.

It is also contended that the Government of Andhra Pradesh

issued G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (ASSN.I) Department dated

21.06.2016 stating that the compensation for the resumed assigned

lands shall be paid on par with patta lands as per the provisions of

the Act 30 of 2013. It is evident from the letter addressed by the

Tahsildar, Mydukur dated 09.10.2003 that the assigned lands of the

petitioners were resumed in the year 1989, but no damages were

paid to the petitioners. Therefore, inaction of the respondents is

questioned by the petitioners in the present writ petition.

MSM,J WP_30776_2018

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavit denying the

material allegations while admitting about acquisition of the land of

the petitioners, taking possession in terms of the Act 30 of 2013 and

contended that the land of the petitioners is purely Government

Assigned land, uncultivable waste land, at the time of acquisition. As

per G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated

23.12.1993 and also as per New L.A Act, 2013 the petitioners are not

eligible for rents/damages as the lands acquired are not fit for

cultivation. These are only barren lands without any irrigation

sources and to depend only on rain. The petitioners did not mention

specifically the damage/rent caused to them on acquisition of their

land in the year 1989. Hence without claiming specific damages

caused to them, they have no legal right for claiming damages as

compensation. The DKT land is not cultivated by the petitioners and

the said land is waste lands. Hence the request of petitioners for

payment of rents/damages does not arise and cannot be considered.

Therefore, in the absence of specific claim of damages caused to the

petitioners, they are not entitled to claim damages for the period

between taking possession of the land and issue of notification under

Section 11 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013, requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while

reiterating the contentions urged in the petition has drawn the

attention of this Court to the Judgments of the Apex Court in

"Tahera Khotoon vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land

Acquisition Officer1" and "Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil vs.

State of Maharashtra2". On the strength of the principle laid down

2013 LawSuit (SC) 1224

2022 (1) ALD 184 (SC) MSM,J WP_30776_2018

in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners requested

this Court to grant damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation

awarded.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reiterated

the contentions urged in the counter while specifically contending

that in the absence of specific claim for damages, the petitioners are

not entitled to claim damages, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Undisputedly, the land acquired by the Government was

assigned land and the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment

of the property till advance possession was taken over by the Land

Acquisition Officer. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016,

whenever the assigned lands are required for a public purpose for a

project or for alienation to a Government Department or Corporation,

the lands shall be resumed as per conditions of Patta, and the

compensation for the resumed assigned lands shall be paid on par

with Patta lands as per the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 or any

other Land Acquisition Act in force in the State. In the present case,

though the land was resumed invoking clause 17 of the Patta for

public purpose, still the petitioners are entitled to claim

compensation on par with private patta land owners in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016. As the petitioners are DKT patta

holders, they are entitled to claim compensation on par with private

patta land owners. The petitioners are also entitled to claim all other

benefits on par with private patta holders.

Admittedly, advance possession of the land was taken over on

02.06.1989, and the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act 30 of

2013 was issued on 04.07.2016. This fact is not disputed by the

respondents except contending that no specific amount is claimed as

damages by the petitioners. In "Tahera Khotoon vs. Revenue MSM,J WP_30776_2018

Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer" (referred supra), the

Apex Court granted damages at the rate of 15% on the compensation

awarded from the date the land owners were dispossessed. The same

principle can be applied to the present facts of the case and the

petitioners are entitled for damages irrespective of the nature of the

land i.e. either cultivable or non-cultivable land, since compensation

is already determined taking into consideration of the relevant

factors. Therefore, damages can be awarded to the petitioners at the

rate of 15% on the compensation already determined. The same

principle is reiterated in "Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil vs.

State of Maharashtra" (referred supra), wherein the Apex Court

held that the land owners are entitled to other statutory benefits on

the compensation amount from the date of award. Hence, applying

the principle laid down in the above judgments, I direct the

respondents to pay damages to the petitioners at the rate of 15% on

the compensation awarded for the period from 02.06.1989 i.e. taking

possession of land of the petitioners till 04.07.2016 i.e. the date of

issue of notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 23.02.2022 Ksp