THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICESANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2009 DATED AUGUST, 2010 Between: M/s.Rain Commodities Limited. … Appellant/ Respondent 5 And Pattan Saida Saheb (died per LRs) And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2009 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) By order dated 06.11.2008, a learned Judge disposed of Writ Petition No.29278 of 1997 directing the fifth respondent company/ appellant company to re-deliver possession of the writ petitioner’s land being an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Sy.No.109/Ruu, Revoor Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District, as it had been illegally occupied by the appellant company without lawful acquisition. This exercise was directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant company is in appeal. The writ petitioner having died pendente lite his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5 in the writ petition. They are arrayed as respondents 2 to 5 in this appeal. It was the case of the writ petitioner that he was in possession of the subject land till 1987-88 when he was forcibly divested of the same by the appellant company, which thereafter constructed quarters thereupon. Upon enquiry, he was informed by the staff of the appellant company that the authorities of the State had acquired the said land for the benefit of the appellant company. The writ petitioner’s grievance was that he was never served a notice, paid compensation or asked to deliver the possession of the subject land pursuant to the so-called acquisition proceedings. Speaking on behalf of the State, the Revenue Divisional Officer- cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Suryapet, the eighth respondent herein, admitted that the writ petitioner was the pattadar of the subject land. He conceded that the said extent was not included in the acquisition proceedings relating to various lands which also covered an extent of Acs.21.06 guntas in Sy.No.109 of Revoor Village. He further stated that the possession of this land was not delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant company and that the land had been occupied by the appellant company without there being any acquisition. The State therefore took the stand that the subject land was the patta land of the writ petitioner as evidenced by his pattadar pass book and that the appellant company had illegally occupied the same making itself liable to pay compensation. The appellant company did not choose to enter appearance in the writ petition. In view of the same and taking note of the State’s stand, the learned Judge was of the opinion that, though normally the writ petitioner ought to be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit, keeping in mind the deprivation of the writ petitioner’s source of livelihood without due process and the pendency of the writ petition for over a decade, such a step would only be adding to his woes. The learned Judge therefore opined that the ends of justice would be met in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case by directing the appellant company to return the land illegally occupied by it, within three months. The learned Judge also left it open to the petitioners to avail such remedies as were open to them in law for claiming damages towards crop loss and mental agony. Assailing the said order, the appellant company filed the present appeal. It claimed that it did not have notice of the filing of the writ petition. According to it, its old address had been furnished by the writ petitioner and it had in fact shifted from the said premises in the year 1998. However, this contention is belied by the records. The name of the appellant company, being M/s.Priya Darshini Cements Limited, was thereafter changed to M/s.Rain Commodities Limited. The writ petition as originally framed was filed against M/s.Priya Darshini Cements Limited. The record pertaining to the writ petition reflects that notices were served both upon M/s.Priya Darshini Cements Limited as well as M/s.Rain Industries Limited. The service of notice is evidenced by acknowledgment cards bearing the stamps in both names of the appellant company, duly signed by its representatives. Be that as it may, it is the stand of the appellant company that it acquired an extent of Acs.125-00 guntas by private negotiations and an extent of approximately Acs.186-00 guntas through land acquisition with the aid of the State. The appellant company erected a cement plant along with necessary infrastructure upon the said land. According to it, the subject land was either acquired by it or through the acquisition effected by the State. The appellant company therefore asserted its possessory rights over the subject land since 1995. With regard to the writ petitioner’s claim, it is the stand of the appellant company that the writ petitioner had exchanged the subject land with one Rangisetty for an equivalent extent in Sy.No.97 of Revoor Village. This fact is said to be borne out by the letter dated 23.02.1994 addressed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellacheruvu. The appellant company further claimed that a sworn statement to this effect was also executed by the writ petitioner. In view thereof, contesting the claim made by the writ petitioner in respect of the subject land, the appellant company contended that the learned Judge ought not to have exercised extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such a matter and ought to have relegated the party to the remedy of a civil suit. This Court, in the first instance, directed delivery of possession of the subject property to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellacheruvu, ninth respondent herein, pending disposal of the appeal as there was a dispute with regard to the purchase of the subject land by the writ petitioner. However, upon the application made by the appellant company seeking to retain its possession over the subject land and praying for modification of the earlier order, this Court by order dated 18.04.2009 directed the appellant company to deposit a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs with the Registrar and subject to this condition, the appellant company was permitted to retain possession. Thereafter, by order dated 23.04.2009 this Court took cognizance of the fact that the appellant company had complied with the above order and deposited the sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs as directed. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.08.2009, taking note of the aforestated developments, this Court being of the opinion that the only question that was left for consideration was the market rate of the land involved, which had to be paid by the appellant company to the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner, respondents 2 to 5 herein, directed the District Judge, Nalgonda, to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit a report after ascertaining the market rate of the subject land existing as on date. Report dated 17.11.2009 was submitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, pursuant to the aforestated order, which was received by the Registry of this Court on 25.03.2010. The learned counsel appearing on either side were permitted to file their objections to the aforestated report by order dated 08.04.2010. Heard Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy, the learned counsel representing Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant company, and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. As the subject land remained in the possession of the appellant company and has been utilized by it for its industry since a long time, the direction of the learned single Judge though fully justified on facts, would not serve any purpose at this stage. It would meet the ends of justice to direct the appellant company to now at least recompense the owners of the subject land so as to undo the legal wrong done to them. The appellant company itself is not in a position to indicate the source of its possession over the subject land as is clear from its averment in the appeal that the subject land may have either been acquired by it through private negotiations or through the acquisition by the State. The stand of the State on the other hand clearly establishes that the subject land was not included in the acquisition proceedings initiated by it. That being so, when the appellant company is not in a position to demonstrate that the subject land was acquired by it through private negotiations by way of any registered document, it can be safely presumed that there is no legal basis for the appellant company’s occupation and possession over the subject land. Though a feeble attempt was made by the appellant company to attack the writ petitioner’s title and ownership over the subject land, no registered document of exchange is placed on file to support the claim of the appellant company that the subject land was exchanged by the writ petitioner with one Rangisetty for some other extent of land. Further, there is no evidence of the appellant company having acquired the subject land from Rangisetty also. Had the land been so exchanged as claimed by the appellant company, Rangisetty himself would have agitated a claim for compensation in respect of the subject land. Thus, these undeniable facts negate the contentions of the appellant company in this regard. So far as the value of the subject land is concerned, pursuant to the order of this Court, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, undertook a detailed enquiry into the matter and submitted his report as aforestated. Before the learned District Judge the claim of the land owners, respondents 2 to 5, was that the market value would be Rs.25.00 lakhs per acre. On the other hand, the appellant company contended that the value would be lesser than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The authorities of the State also participated in the enquiry and stated that the subject land was agricultural dry land originally and that after the appellant company occupied the same, factory labour quarters had been constructed thereon by it for accommodating its staff. The land was said to be unfit for house sites owing to the pollution caused by the appellant company’s cement industry. Placing reliance upon the Award dated 02.03.2009 (Ex.B.2) passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Suryapet, in respect of acquisition of lands in Revoor Village, the District Judge concluded that the market value of the subject land could be fixed at Rs.5.00 lakhs per acre. The District Judge also relied on the fact that the subject land had been utilized for housing servant quarters and that it abutted the road between Mellacheruvu and Ramapuram. Pertinent to note, Ex.B.2 Award pertained to lands acquired in February/March, 2008. The appellant company filed objections to the above report stating that the subject land was unfit for cultivation or human habitation and therefore the learned District Judge ought not to have placed the same on par with lands fit for housing sites in Ex.B.2 Award. Reliance was also placed on the purchase made by the appellant company of an extent of Ac.1-05 guntas in Sy.No.165 of Revoor Village in May, 2008 at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The appellant company accordingly sought fresh enquiry into the matter. Though the appellant company contested the price fixation by the learned District Judge, Nalgonda, reference may be made to the correspondence addressed by it to the land owners during the pendency of this litigation which was filed before this Court in WAMP No.2040 of 2009 in W.A.No.408 of 2009. By letter dated 26.06.2009 addressed to the land owners the appellant company stated that without prejudice to its right in this appeal, it was willing to pay a final figure of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for settling the issue. Therefore, its contention that the value of the subject land would be less than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre cannot be countenanced. The sale deed of May, 2008 mentioned by the appellant company cannot be relied upon as the appellant company was itself a party to it and the same does not represent an independent sale transaction. The learned District Judge, Nalgonda, being seized of the matter and having examined evidence, both oral and documentary, was of the opinion that the market value of the subject land could be fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. It is however to be noticed that the authorities of the State, who are presumed to be detached and impartial, stated that the subject land was unsuitable for human habitation owing to its proximity to the cement industry of the appellant company and that it was not fit for house sites. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the appellant company that the learned District Judge, Nalgonda, erred in putting the subject land on par with lands located adjacent to existing abadi suitable for house sites in Ex.B.2 Award. The market rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre would therefore be excessive. In the totality of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be sufficiently served by fixing the compensation payable by the appellant company for the subject land at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre lump sum. As the subject land was not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land owners would be deprived of the other benefits provided thereunder. To compensate therefor, we feel that this lump sum figure would be commensurate. Therefore, respondents 2 to 5 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.109/Ruu, Revoor Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. As this amount has already been deposited by the appellant company with the Registry of the High Court, the same shall be released along with accumulated interest, if any, to respondents 2 to 5 under proper acknowledgment. We reaffirm the liberty given by the learned Judge to the land owners to invoke such remedies as are available to them in law for claiming damages for the illegal deprivation of their land, crop loss and mental agony. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforestated directions, but in the circumstances of the case, with no order as to costs. ----------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ AUGUST, 2010. PGS