IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.25468 of 2001 Between: B.Madusudhan Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Warangal District at Subedari Hanamkonda, Warangal District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Keshava Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in illegally occupying the petitioner’s land admeasuring 1500 Sq. yards in Survey No.137/C, situated at Bheemaram village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District, without initiating any proceedings and paying compensation, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner claimed an alternative relief of directing the respondents to provide an alternative land in lieu of the said extent of 1500 Sq. yards, illegally occupied by the respondents. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner claimed that he is absolute owner of Ac.3.00 guntas of land in Survey No.137/C, situated at Bheemaram village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District; that the said land was his ancestral property, which fell to his share in family partition in the year 1970; that after partition the patta was mutated in his name in the year 1982 by deleting the name of his deceased father-Sri B.V.Dharma Reddy; that out of the said land, the petitioner donated 556 Sq.yards for approach road to Yerragattu Venkateswara Swamy Temple in the year 1982- 83 and an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas was sold to KITS College; and that the remaining extent of Ac.2.00 guntas is in his possession and enjoyment. He further stated that on 25-1-1999 when he visited the land in question, to his surprise, he found that the respondents illegally occupied an extent of 1500 Sq. yards of land towards road side without any notice to him and his consent; and that his enquiries revealed that the Government is going to develop the said area as Tourism spot and the land was required to complete the programme. He also stated that before constructing the compound wall, the respondents have neither issued a notice to him nor obtained his consent and that he got legal notice dated 3-2-1999 issued to the respondents calling upon them either to deliver vacant possession of the land or pay compensation, but, though the said notice was received on 4-2-1999 neither the respondents issued any reply nor initiated any proceedings for acquiring the said land. No counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled controverting the above-mentioned averments contained in the affidavit. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner caused legal notice dated 3-2-1999 issued to respondents 1 and 2, containing the averments as raised in the aﬃdavit, which were referred to hereinabove. The petitioner also ﬁled acknowledgment evincing receipt of notice by respondent No.2. The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Such a right cannot be denied to a citizen without following due process of law. Despite the legal notice caused to be issued by the petitioner, wherein he made a categorical assertion that the property occupied by the respondents belongs to him, no reply has been given by the respondents. Even though the Writ Petition is ﬁled as far back as the year 2001 and nearly seven years have elapsed since then, no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled denying the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the said property of 1500 Sq. yards; and that the respondents have unauthorizedly and arbitrarily occupied the same. The failure of the respondents to respond to the just grievance of the petitioner cannot be countenanced in a Society governed by a Rule of Law. The action of the respondents is, therefore, absolutely unconstitutional. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to return the land to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. If the respondents ﬁnd that the petitioner’s land is required for any public purpose, they shall initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioner taking the date on which the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) will be issued as the relevant date for the purpose of computation of market value, complete the land acquisition proceedings, and pay compensation to the petitioner within three months from today. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court to claim damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the land till initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. -------------------------- ---------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 22-9-2008 MNR