HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.4438 of 2010 Date : 28-11-2011 Between : M. Chinna Venkata Swamy and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development (PW) Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Sri M. Venkataramana Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4: Government Pleader for Irrigation Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 5 : -- Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6 : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, unfortunate as they are, have knocked at the doors of this Court for remedying the injustice caused to them in taking their lands for the purpose of formation of approach road from Peddagummadapuram to Chinna Gummadapuram and not paying compensation for over one decade. The petitioners in their aﬃdavit claimed that the lands admeasuring Ac.1-10 cents in Sy.Nos.453/C2 and 193/2, Ac.0-62 cents in Sy.No.107/1B and Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.194/2 were acquired initially along with other lands for the above mentioned purpose. Despite their persistent eﬀorts to convince the respondents to pay compensation, the petitioners could not succeed. Therefore, vexed with the attitude of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. In support of their claim that the above mentioned lands were notiﬁed for acquisition, the petitioners have ﬁled a copy of draft notiﬁcation purportedly issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), but the said proposals were not taken to their logical end, with the result, the petitioners are denied use of their lands as well as payment of the compensation. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2 it is inter alia stated that the Executive Engineer, P.W. Division, Kurnool vide letter dated 21-8-1990 has sent requisition for an extent of Ac.7- 71 cents in Gummadapuram village of Kothapalli Mandal for formation of approach road; that accordingly acquisition proposals were taken on ﬁle; that the lands were pre-scrutinised by the Deputy Inspector, oﬃce of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Kurnool and that as per the Sub- Division records, the lands to the extent of Ac.6-19 cents in Sy.Nos.194/2, 195/2, 183/1, 184/1, 184/3, 185/2, 130/2, 129/2B2, 133/2, 135/2, 136/2 and 139/1A are acquired for formation of the approach road. It is further averred that the Special Deputy Collector, LA & Reh., Srisailam Project, Kurnool approved the draft notiﬁcation on 21-6-2001 for acquiring Ac.6-19 cents and after dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, an award was passed on 24-5-2002. It is further stated that the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has requested the requisitioning Department for acquiring Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.Nos.453/C2 and 193/2 on the reports dated 5-10-2006 and 3-5-2007 of Tahsildar, Kothapalli; that the Special Collector, Srisailam Project, returned the proposals, to be submitted along with the request of the requisitioning Department; that the requisitioning Department was asked vide letter dated 4-8-2009 for sending the requisition for the above mentioned lands, but the requisitioning Department has not sent the requisition. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, while conceding that the petitioners’ lands of the extent of Ac.1-13 cents were utilized for the above mentioned purpose, stated that the said lands were not notiﬁed in the notiﬁcation published under Section 4(1) of the Act for the only reason that the Panchayat Raj Department, which is the requisitioning Department, failed to give the requisition. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The failure of these respondents in notifying the petitioners’ lands for acquisition and paying the compensation, amounts to sheer dereliction of their administrative and statutory functions, resulting in denial of valuable legal and Constitutional rights of the petitioners. In E.P. Vinaya Sagar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer[1], this Court, at para-32 held : “Prior to the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, Right to Property was guaranteed by Article 31. However, under the said amendment, the said right has been shifted from Part III of the Constitution and shown in the form of Article 300-A, which prescribed that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. Under second proviso to Article 31-A, where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. Article 31(A-2) gave a wider meaning to the word ‘estate’ to include any land, any jagir, inam or muaﬁ or other similar grant, any land held by ryotwari settlement and any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans. Thus, taking away of the private land of a citizen without payment of compensation is anathema to the constitutional scheme.” The lands of the petitioners were taken over a decade back without paying any compensation. Such an action on the part of the respondents constitutes violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. On the above analysis, the Writ Petition is allowed, with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty ﬁve thousand only), payable by respondent No.1 to the petitioners in equal proportions. The respondents are directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings, complete the same and pay compensation for the above noted lands within three months from today. Respondent No.1 shall ﬁx the responsibility on the Oﬃcer who is responsible for not sending the requisition and recover the costs from him. As a sequel, WPMP No.5727/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-11-2011 AM [1] 2008(3) ALT 92