IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5221 of 2002 Between: G. Simhachalam S/o. G. Chellayya, R/o. A.Annavaram, Shankhavaram Mandal, E.G. District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (L.A), E.G. District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, E.G. District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Y.I. Division, Peddapuram, E.G.District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR E.VENKATA RAO FOR MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5221 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying any compensation despite taking advance possession of land admeasuring Ac.0.95 cents in Survey No.88/2-B of Arampudi Village, Sankhavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the above mentioned land, which was proposed to be acquired by notiﬁcation dated 10.12.1995 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for brevity) for the purpose of formation of Flood Bank under CERP work of Pampa Reservoir (S.S.S.Sagar). Though the petitioner, in his aﬃdavit, stated that he came to know that the said notiﬁcation was issued on 10.12.1995, he did not ﬁle copies of publication of notiﬁcation either in the Gazette or in the newspapers. He, however, stated that in pursuance of the proposed acquisition, possession of land was taken forcibly in August 1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that 80% of advance compensation as envisaged in Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act has not been paid and award has not been made so far. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before me fax letter dated 07.08.2008 addressed by Sri B.Suryanarayana, Executive Engineer, Y.I. Division, Peddapuram, to the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, wherein it is stated that the L.O.C. requisition is already submitted to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram, for release of L.O.C. amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) towards payment of compensation. The above mentioned communication does not indicate whether the L.O.C. of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) is sought for from the Irrigation Department in order to initiate land acquisition proceedings or to make payment of compensation under the award, if any, passed. Even the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is unable to assist the Court in this regard. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to give any speciﬁc ﬁnding whether the procedure under the Act has been already completed and an award has been passed or not. The respondents, however, admit that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) towards compensation for the land admittedly acquired by them. The provisions of the Act protect the interests of the land owners by placing the maximum time limit of one year for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act from the date of publication of notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act. These provisions are intended to prevent the State and its oﬃcers from prolonging the acquisition proceedings for unduly long periods and disabling the land owners from procuring alternative lands from the compensation that may be paid after long years after initiation of acquisition proceedings. In cases like the present one, where possession was taken as far back as the year 1995 and payments not made, the very purpose of the above referred provisions of the Act will be defeated. If the respondents pay this compensation after more than a decade, it becomes a pittance to the land owner and he will not be in a position to buy an alternative land from out of the compensation that is paid to him. Therefore, the Supreme Court and this Court in a number of cases held that superior Courts have the power to recompense for the loss sustained by the land owner on account of undue delay in completing land acquisition proceedings and paying compensation amount {See State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma [1], Ambalal Purshottam v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation[2], Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P.[3], Ram Chand v. Union of India[4], Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar[5], Mohmed Abdullah (died) by Legal Representatives v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad[6] and K.Sai Reddy & Others v. Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, I.B. Sub-Division, Hyderabad & Others[7]}. In view of the admitted fact that possession was taken in August 1995 and compensation amount has not so far been paid to the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) to the petitioner with interest payable under Section 34 of the Act. In addition to the said amount, the respondents shall pay 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) towards compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within eight {8} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 8th August 2008 RRB [1] (1966) 3 SCR 557 [2] (1968) 3 SCR 207 [3] (1976) 1 SCC 843 [4] (1994) 1 SCC 44 [5] AIR 1984 SC 1767 [6] 1998 (4) ALT 568 [7] 1995 (1) ALT 673