Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1421 AP

                               1




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
            WRIT PETITION No.19156 of 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the

respondents in not paying the compensation for the acquisition

of land measuring Ac.1-36 cents situated in Sy.Nos.720/1 and

721 in Prathipadu Revenue village, Guntur District.

This court has heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao,

learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned

standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned

Government Pleader for revenue for respondents 4 to 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the

petitioner is a private trust running a "Dharmasatram" /

Choultry in the subject land and village. It is the owner of the

land situated in Sy.Nos.720/1 and 721 in Prathipadu Revenue

village, Guntur District. It is the case of the petitioner that the

2nd respondent Corporation has taken over the said land and

established a bus station therein but has not paid them any

compensation whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioner

argues that once the land has been taken over and the bus

stand has been constructed for the benefit of the public the

respondents are bound to pay the compensation to the owners.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

dispute about the essential facts and that as the land was

highhandedly taken over by the respondents for construction

of a bus stand, they are bound to pay the compensation. While

repelling the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

respondents on the grounds of delay etc., it is argued that if

there is a blatant violation of the rights of the petitioner, the

delay should not be a ground to throw out the case. Learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following five

judgments, which are filed along with a memo to argue that the

petitioner's rights cannot be denied solely on the ground of

delay.

1) N. Ananda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh1

2) Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others2

3) The Secretary to Government of A.P., I & CAD, Department, Hyderabad and Others v Lavudi Lakya and others3

4) E.P. Vinaya Sagar v Land Acquistion Officer-cum-

              Revenue             Divisional      Officer,   Kamareddy,
              Nizamabad and Others4

5) Gourishetti Narayana v special Deputy Collector (LA & R & R) Sripadasagar (Yellampally) Project, Mancherial, Adilabad and Others5

For respondents 2 and 3-the State Road Corporation,

the learned standing counsel Sri Durga Prasad argues that the

land was "voluntarily" given by the trustees to the State Road

Transport Corporation in 1988 and was not forcibly or

highhandedly taken over. The bus stand was constructed in

the year 1989. It is asserted that from that date till the Writ

2021 SCC OnLine AP 2679

(2020) 2 SCC 569

W.A.No.548 of 2004 of High Court of A.P.,

2008 SCC OnLine AP 56

2014 SCC OnLine AP 1416

petition is filed the petitioners never approached the

respondents or any authorities for compensation. Apart from

that it is reiterated that the land was actually "donated" for the

construction of a bus station. The bus station was constructed

under the 'Telugu Grameena Kranthi Padham' and is being

used since 1989. Since the land is donated at free of cost the

question of payment of compensation does not arise as per him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the

documents, which are annexed to the writ petition, to state that

the land was donated by the trust. He relies upon the letter

dated 07.07.1988 by which the Junior Engineer has taken over

possession of the property. He also points out that in a letter

addressed by the local MLA it is clearly asserted that the land

is given free of cost 13 years ago. Lastly, learned counsel relies

upon a letter addressed by two of the trustees, to the then Chief

Minister, wherein it is mentioned that the land was given for

construction of a bus station, on the condition that the State

Road Corporation would reconstruct the old dilapidated

choultry, which is standing there. Basing on these documents,

learned counsel argues that the trustees have voluntarily

donated the land. It is also submitted that the issues urged in

this case including forcible occupation as urged by the

petitioners are matters of evidence. There are very seriously

disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a writ

petition, as per him.

For the 6th respondent the learned Government Pleader

for Revenue also argues on similar lines. It is reiterated that

the site was donated for the bus stand at Prathipadu. The local

enquiries made by the respondents clearly show that this land

was in fact donated. An issue is raised about the locus of the

present petitioner and deponent of the affidavit who filed the

present writ petition. The issue of delay is also highlighted by

the learned Government Pleader.

COURT:

Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that the land was occupied and taken over

without permission and without payment of compensation. He

lays emphasis on the case law that he has cited and in

particular the leading judgment of Vidya Devi case (2 supra).

He also argues that other judgments cited by him are squarely

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and that

only on the ground of delay the petitioners case cannot be

thrown away. He also laid stress on Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India, to argue that the right of property is a

basic human right and that a person cannot be deprived of his

property except by due process of law. Hence, he prays for an

order. While this argument looks appealing, a closure

examination of the facts in this case make it clear that the

present case is clearly distinguishable. The case law cited by

the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the

facts in this case for the simple reason that there is a

fundamental issue about the land i.e., whether this land is

donated or occupied. In the information furnished to the

petitioner on 15.10.2015 itself it is mentioned by the RTC

authorities under the RTI Act that the property was taken over

in 1987 and it is "gift land". In the counter affidavit filed by the

2nd and 3rd respondents it is asserted that the land was

voluntarily donated. No rejoinder is filed to this counter

affidavit. The enclosure to the counter namely the letter dated

07.07.1988 addressed by the Junior Engineer, APSRTC,

Guntur, states that the land is "donated" by the Trust. It is

stated that the Trust members also agreed to register the land

after the finalization of certain issues. It is ultimately

mentioned that the Junior Engineer has taken the land on five

rupees stamp paper from the Trust members and that the

registration of the land is pending. The letter addressed by the

local MLA in September, 2000 also states that the land is given

"freely for the RTC bus stand". Lastly, in the letter addressed

by the Trustees, it is also stated that the land was given

voluntarily for the Bus stand and in return the dilapidated

choultry would be constructed by the RTC authorities. The

request in the penultimate paragraph is for the construction of

the choultry. These facts, in the opinion of this Court, make a

fundamental difference in the applicability of the case law to

the present case. While the delay itself cannot be a ground to

throw out the claim of the petitioner, it is clear that if the land

was voluntarily donated the petitioner would not be entitled to

compensation. Even if the RTC did not reconstruct the

choultry can the petitioner claim compensation? Was the land

"forcefully taken over" is another issue. Although there is no

"gift deed" per se some contemporaneous evidence is produced.

The property is being used openly and is assessed to tax in the

name of the RTC. The petitioner's inaction for decades is also

clearly visible. Thus, there are very seriously disputed

questions of fact. They require evidence to be decided. The

same cannot be done in the proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. The judgments cited by the 2nd

respondent viz., Narender v Secretary, Municipal

Administration, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and

Others6 is also similar to the facts of this case. In that case

also learned single Judge held that where there is seriously

disputed question of facts writ is not a proper remedy.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open

to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to him. In

such a case both parties can raise all the pleas available to

them. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:23.03.2022 Ssv

2003 (5) ALD 448