IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.22025 of 2001 Between: Panuganti Janardhan Rao and five others. … Petitioners And The Superintending Engineer (PWD), R & B, Nalgonda and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Bathini Papa Rao Goud. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for R & B for R.1and R.2. AGP for Land Acquisition for R.3 & R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not taking up further proceedings in pursuance of notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Bathini Papa Rao Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleaders for R & B and Land Acquisition for the respondents; and perused the record. Some of the lands belonging to the petitioners were notiﬁed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act for formation and improvement of road from Kangal to Mall village, Nalgonda District. The said notiﬁcation was published in A.P. Gazette on 30-8-1985. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Draft Declaration was published in A.P. Gazette on 6-9-1985. In view of Act 68 of 1984, which required that award should be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the draft notiﬁcation, the Land Acquisition proceedings were treated to have lapsed with the failure of passing of the award. The petitioners ﬁled the present Writ Petition aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in completing the acquisition proceedings and paying the compensation. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 it is, inter alia, stated that for formation of and undertaking improvements to the existing road from Kangal to Mall, the existing road was transferred from Public Works Department to Roads and Buildings Department and proceedings were initiated under the Act for acquisition of the private lands belonging to the petitioners for making improvements; and that as the acquisition proceedings got lapsed, no further steps were taken. He further averred that the Executive Engineer, PWD (R& B), Nalgonda, reported in his letter dated 21-9-2002 that the road was formed within the land taken over from the Panchayat Raj Department and that the petitioners and other land owners, whose lands were notiﬁed for acquisition, have been in possession and enjoying of their respective lands. It is further stated that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nalgonda, requested the Executive Engineer, vide his letter dated 26- 2-2008, to inform whether initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings is required; and that the Executive Engineer, vide his letter dated 6-9- 2008 reported that there is no need for acquiring the petitioners’ lands as the road was formed within the land taken over from the Panchayat Raj Department. In paragraph 8 of the counter- aﬃdavit it is speciﬁcally stated that no part of the land of the petitioners was taken possession and each of the petitioners is in possession of their respective lands. The answering respondent also ﬁled various documents, including the above-mentioned two letters, along with his counter-affidavit. The petitioners ﬁled a reply aﬃdavit along with an application to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to visit the site and note down the physical features of the land in question. Separate order is being passed in the said application. In the reply aﬃdavit it is stated that third parties have encroached and dug trenches over the land belonging to petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6; and that the said land is not useful for any purpose unless the trenches are ﬁlled up with earth. With regard to the land of petitioner No.4 in Survey No.573 of Indurthi village, it is stated that the same was used by the respondents for constructing the culvert and he lost the land to the width of 48 feet. In the reply aﬃdavit the petitioners have not asserted that in pursuance of the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, possession of their lands was taken. As noted above, it is the case of the petitioners that in respect of the land of petitioner No.4, a culvert has been built. The petitioners, however, pleaded, as mentioned supra, because of digging of trenches over their lands, except the land of petitioner No.4, they cannot put the lands to use unless the trenches are filled up with earth. The allegation of digging of trenches was made for the ﬁrst time in the reply aﬃdavit. The question, whether trenches were dug on the lands of the petitioners or not cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition, because determination of such an issue is possible only on consideration of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Similarly, whether a culvert was constructed in the land of petitioner No.4 or not is also required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court in a civil suit. If the petitioners’ lands were put to use either for digging of trenches or construction of a culvert, they are surely entitled to be compensated for denying the land, whether permanently or temporarily. Their entitlement to compensation, thus, depends upon the determination of the questions of fact. Even in the event if the competent civil Court holds that the petitioners’ property was used for digging trenches, what would be the reasonable compensation, has again to be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the above-mentioned disputed questions of fact in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court by way of a civil suit for claiming appropriate compensation for the alleged digging of trenches and construction of a culvert on the respective lands belonging to the petitioners. Since the respondents have taken the stand that no part of the petitioners’ land is utilized for the purpose of formation or improvement of the road, the petitioners shall be free to utilize their respective lands, if necessary, by ﬁlling the trenches, if any, existing thereon. It is made clear that their enjoyment of land does not in any manner deny them the right to claim appropriate compensation before the competent Court of law for the damages they have allegedly suﬀered on account of temporary/permanent deprivation of their lands either in digging trenches or construction of a culvert. ------------------------- -------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-10-2008 MNR