IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.7719 and 7730 of 2000 WRIT PETITION No.7719 of 2000 Between: 1 A. Ratnakumari, D/o. K. Suryanarayana, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 2 Karuturi Satyanarayana S/o. Chowdary, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 3 Karuturi Ramachandra Rao, S/o. Narayana, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 4 V. K. Murthy, S/o. Jankamma, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 5 Karuturi Bapayamma, W/o. Veera Raghavulu, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 6 Karuturi Krishna Murthy, S/o. Kamanna, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 7 Indugula Surya Rao, S/o. Veeranna, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 8 Chellu Peda Satyam, S/o. Gangaiah, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 9 P. Subba Raju, S/o. Rama Rao, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 10 K. Venkata Rao, S/o. Tatabbai, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 11 Karuturi Krishna Murthy, S/o. Tatabbai, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 12 Karuturi Seetharathanam, W/o. Late Kamanna, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 13 Karuturi Venkata Rao, S/o. Tatalu, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 14 Maddipati Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Naryana, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 15 Garapati Nagarathnam, W/o. Kameswara Rao, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 16 D. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Sreramulu, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 17 Thalluri Dhanalakshmi, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. 18 Karuturi Venkayamma, W/o. Satyanarayana,. Anakampalem, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavri District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada,. 2 The Renvenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram Division, Amalpuram, East Godavari District, 3 The Executive Engineer, A.P.H.M. & CERO Division, Pragati Buildings, Kakinada,. East Godavari District, 4 The Superintendent Engineer, Irregation Circle, Elurur, West Godavri District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2:AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT PETITION NO.7730 of 2000 Between: 1 Garapati Abbulu Chowdary S/o. Ganga Raju R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 2 Karuturi Bheemeswara Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 3 Chitturi Mandhana rao S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 4 Kaurturi Brahmaiah S/o. Kamanna R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 5 Karutri Venubabu S/o. Brahmaiah R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 6 Karuturi Hanumantha Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 7 Chitturi ramulu S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 8 Karuturi Nageswara Rao S/o. Latchaiah R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 9 Duggina Viswantham S/o. Sreeramulu R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 10 Burugupalli Jagannayakulu S/o. Rama Murthy R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 11 Kantipudi Venkata rao S/o. Brahmanna R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 12 Chinta Satyanarayana S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 13 Karuturi Ramachandra Rao S/o. Tatalu R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 14 Maddipati Lakshmamma W/o. Narsimha Murthy R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 15 Chitturi Ramakrishna Jagan Mohani W/o. Trinadha Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 16 Chintapalli Lakshmi W/o. Venkata Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 17 Chitturi Govinda Rao S/o. Venkataranthnam R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 18 Chitturi Prameela W/o. Govinda Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 19 Chitturi Akkayamma W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 20 Chitturi Satyanarayana S/o. Ramulu R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 21 Grapati Narasimha Murthy S/o. Ganga Raju R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 22 Sunkara Venkata Rao S/o. Sreeramulu R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 23 Karuturi Krishna Murthy S/o. Narayana R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 24 Karuturi Sreenivasa Rao S/o. Lakshmana Rao R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 25 Kudapa Ratnam W/o. Ramulu R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 26 Karuturi Seshaiah S/o. Naganna R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 27 Garapati Krishna Murthy S/o. Ganga Raju R/o. Ankampalem Village, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram Division, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Executive Engineer, A.P.H.M & CERP Division, Pragati Buildings, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2:AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since these two writ petitions raise common issues, they are heard and being disposed of together. Heard Sri G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 and 2. The patta lands of the petitioners situated adjacent to Kattunga Drainage Channel of Ankampalem Village of Atreyapuram Mandal, were utilized by the respondents for the purpose of widening the drainage channel from 0.0 km to 6.0 km. Admittedly, the land acquisition proceedings were not initiated. The petitioners approached this Court on two earlier occasions and this Court directed the respondents to consider payment of compensation in respect of the coconut trees standing on the lands, as the petitioners gave up their claim for compensation in respect of the lands. In Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000, the petitioners sought for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation to them in respect of the coconut trees. They also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation @ Rs.2,500/- per coconut tree. In Writ Petition No.7730 of 2000, the petitioners were paid compensation @ Rs.850/- and they have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation @ Rs.2,500/- per coconut tree. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000, it is inter alia stated that due to administrative delay, compensation could not be paid. It is further stated that as funds were not made available to the Drainage Department, formal land acquisition proceedings could not be initiated and that the respondents are prepared to pay compensation for the trees together with solatium at 30% and interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of notification. In Writ Petition No.7730 of 2000, the respondents maintained that a sum of Rs.850/- was fixed following the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.601, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, dated 19.06.1992 and that the petitioners are not entitled to payment of higher compensation, much less, compensation @ Rs.2,500/- per coconut tree. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before this Court a copy of fax message submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, wherein it is mentioned that out of 18 petitioners, 9 petitioners produced their evidence of ownership and, therefore, compensation was paid to them. It is further mentioned therein that as the remaining 9 petitioners have not produced their evidence regarding title over their land, they were not paid compensation and that on the said petitioners producing documentary evidence of title, they will be paid compensation. At the hearing, Sri G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that remaining 9 petitioners in Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000 are prepared to produce their title documents and claim compensation. He further submitted that fixation of Rs.850/- per coconut tree as compensation is too meagre and the petitioners may be permitted to seek reference of dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that as the acquisition proceedings have not been initiated, it is not possible for the respondents to pass an award and refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the lands and the coconut trees utilized by the respondents for the purpose of widening of drainage canals belonged to the petitioners. As referred to above, in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000, the reason for not initiating land acquisition proceedings is attributed to failure of the Drainage Department to deposit the requisite compensation amount. This reason is thus purely attributable to the administrative exigencies of the respondents and the petitioners are in no way responsible for non-initiation of land acquisition proceedings by the respondents. Though formal acquisition proceedings have not been initiated, the respondents categorically held out in the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000 that compensation along with solatium at 30% and interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession till the date of notification will be paid. The fact remains that no notification has been issued. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the respondents, they cannot be denied the valuable right of reference under Section 18 of the Act merely on account of the fact that for their own reasons, the respondents were unable to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. The valuable right of the petitioners to receive market value of compensation for the coconut trees cannot therefore, be denied on the ground of non-initiation of proceedings under the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 1. The nine petitioners in Writ Petition No.7719 of 2000 to whom compensation has not been paid are permitted to produce documents of title before respondent No.2, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. On such production, respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate order within four (4) weeks thereafter, and if respondent No.2 is satisfied about the ownership of the petitioners, they shall be paid the compensation. 2. In respect of all the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall pass an order in writing on the fixation of compensation for the coconut trees. Such an order shall be passed even in cases where compensation has already been paid to them. He shall serve the orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The petitioners are entitled to seek reference of dispute for fixation of market value of the coconut trees under Section 18 of the Act treating the orders passed by respondent No.2 as the awards passed under the Act, within two months from the date of receipt of the orders. On such requests being made within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, respondent No.2 shall refer the disputes to the competent civil Court for determination of market value, under Section 18 of the Act. 4. The civil Court shall receive the references and adjudicate the same on merits by treating the orders passed by the respondents as awards passed under the provisions of the Act. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni