Challagulla Sravan Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7105 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

             W.P.Nos.32169 and 32858 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:

      As common questions of fact and law arise in these two

writ petitions, they have taken up for hearing together.

      This Court has heard Sri D.Suresh Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the

facts in these two cases are not in doubt.

In WP.No.32169 of 2017, the petitioner, who is the

owner of agricultural land, has applied for conversion of the

agricultural land to non-agricultural land in accordance with

the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non

Agricultural Purposes Act), 2006 (for short 'Act 3 of 2006').

The challan was paid for the conversion along with the

requisite fee, but the request was rejected. Questioning the

same, the writ petition is filed.

Similarly, in WP.No.32858 of 2017 also, the request of

the petitioner for conversion was rejected on 08.09.2017.

Questioning the same the writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

rejection is only on the ground that there was a likelihood of

acquisition of this land under the National Highways

Authorities Act. Learned counsel submits that this sort of

rejection is contrary to law. He points out that the petitioners

have fulfilled all the formalities and have paid the necessary

challan and fees and that the same is not in dispute. It is his

contention that only on the ground that a notification for

acquisition may be issued; the petitioners' applications were

rejected. Learned counsel points out that the applications

were made in August 2017 and the notification came much

later. Therefore, he submits that the rejection is not valid.

He relies upon judgments reported in K.Satyananda

Patnaik and others v. Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority, rep., by its Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad and

others1 and Mohammed Hassan Fazal v. Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore2. Based on

these two judgments, learned counsel submits that the

respondents who have accepted the challan are bound to

1 2010 (5) ALT 453 2 1998 (6) KarLJ 16

convert the land and the likelihood of land being acquired

under the Land Acquisition Act is not a ground for rejecting

the applications. He also submits that many others who had

applied in this time for conversion were given the benefit, but

only the petitioners were discriminated against. Therefore, he

prays that both the writ petitions should be allowed.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for

Assignment argues in line with the counter affidavit filed in

both the matters. He also does not dispute the essential facts

namely the payment of the challan or the ownership of the

land etc. However, he submits that prior to the applications

are being submitted itself, the Executive Engineer, Roads &

Buildings, has submitted requisition proposals for land

acquisition of the road which will go through the properties of

the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that with a mala fide

intention the petitioners have applied for conversion of the

land from agricultural to non-agricultural. This is described

in the penultimate para 5 of the counter affidavit. The

Government Pleader also submits on instructions that the

acquisition has now been completed. He points out that once

the writ petition has been filed in this Court, notice was

issued to the petitioners, the case was considered in terms of

the interim directions issued and ultimately petitioners' case

was rejected. Therefore, learned Government Pleader argues

that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

This Court after hearing both the learned counsel in

both these matters notices that there is no dispute about the

facts. The ownership, payment of challan, the application

being made etc., are not denied. The only question that falls

for consideration is, whether under the provisions of Act 3 of

2006, the respondents or the authorities have the power to

reject the request of the petitioners for conversion on the

ground of an impending land acquisition. Admittedly,

petitioners have paid the necessary fees and the challan.

Once the challan is paid as per the provisions of section 3 of

Act 3 of 2006, there shall be a conversion. In fact, section

3(5) of Act 3 of 2006 indicates that if no intimation is received

by the applicant that the fee paid by him is deficit, it shall be

deemed that the amount paid is sufficient for the purpose.

Learned single Judge of this Court in K.Satyananda

Patnaik's case (1 supra) also held that once the stipulated

amount is paid, the concerned authority has no option to

reject the request. Section 3 of Act 3 of 2006 was amended.

Prior to the Amendment Act, (Act 13 of 2018), which came

into force on 01.04.2018, an order has to be passed by a

competent authority. But after Act 13 of 2018 came into

force, payment of conversion fee is held to be enough. In the

strict sense, the petitioners applications were before this

amendment, but still the intent and purpose of the Act is

taken into consideration for coming to this conclusion that

once the challan is paid, the respondents shall be deemed to

have given the permission.

Even the second contention urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioners is to be held to be correct. The

mere fact that the requisition for acquisition was given by the

user Department for acquisition of the land is not a ground

for rejecting the applications of the petitioners. Admittedly,

the required notification under the Act was not ordered. Even

in the counter affidavit filed, there is no reference to the

statutory notification being published and the manner in

which the acquisition was completed. Relying purely on

internal correspondence between Roads and Buildings

Department and others the claim of the petitioners was

rejected. It is not clear as to when this proposal has fructified

into a notification and later how the land acquisition

proceeding was completed. As rightly noticed by the learned

single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of

Mohammed Hassan Fazal (2 supra), even if a notification is

issued proposing to acquire the land, that by itself is not a

ground to refuse permission for conversion. The learned

single Judge of the Karnataka High Court relied upon an

earlier Division Bench judgment, which in the opinion of this

Court rightly held that no one can be sure as to when the

preliminary notification will fructify into a proper declaration

under the Land Acquisition Act.

In the opinion of the Court also, the conclusion of the

land acquisition proceedings are not borne out by the record.

The land acquisition proceedings are often dropped.

Sometimes the proposals are changed. Therefore, on the

mere ground that there are impending proceedings, the

request of the petitioners cannot be rejected. Details of the

notification for acquisition of either under National Highways

Act, 1956 or the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 are not disclosed.

Act 3 of 2006 also does not authorize the respondents to

reject the proposals on the ground that the land acquisition

was impending.

As far as the mala fide intention etc., is concerned,

these are all matters of pleading and proof. The law on the

subject is very clear. A plea of mala fide has to be

categorically established. (E.P.Royappa v. Stateof Tamil

Nadu & Another (1974 SCR (2) 348) and other judgments.

In the absence of clear pleading or proof, the plea of mala fide

cannot be accepted.

Admittedly, no details of a notification are given. Unless

a proper public notification is published prior to the date of

the land conversion application, it cannot be presumed that

the petitioners have knowledge of the impending acquisition,

and they applied for conversion. It is not also pleaded that

the internal correspondence relied upon by the respondents

(which is also not filed as material paper by the respondents)

is in the knowledge of the petitioners. In the absence of such

details it cannot be concluded that the petitioners deliberately

made these applications for conversion after being aware of

the impending land acquisition.

Both the writ petitions are therefore allowed. The orders

of rejection are set aside. In view of passage of time,

respondents are directed to formally intimate the petitioners

that the proposal for conversion of agricultural lands into non

agricultural lands is accepted by them if the application is

otherwise in order and the fee paid is correct. No order as to

costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 16.09.2022 KLP