IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:26973 of 2001 Between: K.Vedavyasulu, S/o. Late Venkatadri, R/o. H.No. 5-28, RAilway Station Road, Medchal - 501 401, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Medical & Health Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, O/o. Khairtabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. N.SUBBA REDDY assisted by MR.PALLE NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner for occupying Acs.2.00 of land situated in Survey Nos.1051 and 1130 of Medchal Village of Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. The father of the petitioner was the owner of the lands admeasuring Acs.11.29 guntas and Acs.4.04 guntas situated in Survey Nos.1051 and 1130 respectively of Medchal Village, Ranga Reddy District, out of which, an extent of Acs.6.10 guntas of land was acquired by the Government in 1960 for the purpose of construction of Quarters and Oﬃce of the Block Development Oﬃcer, Panchayat Samithi, Medchal. When there was an attempt to raise constructions by the respondents on the land other than the acquired land, the father of the petitioner ﬁled Writ Petition No.766 of 1985. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by him, he speciﬁcally averred that consequent on the acquisition of Acs.6.10 guntas of land by the Government, possession was delivered to them and that the respondents are not entitled to occupy any land in the said two survey numbers in excess of the acquired land. He pleaded that the Block Development Oﬃcer illegally and unauthorisedly occupied Acs.2.00 of land which was not the subject matter of acquisition over and above the acquired land of Acs.6.10 guntas and that the construction was commenced at the instance of the District Collector and Block Development Oﬃcer. In the light of the said averments, this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order, dated 29.01.1985 by observing that no constructions can be made over the land in excess of the acquired land, without acquiring such land or taking possession of, according to law. On the ground that despite the said observation of this Court, the Panchayat Raj Department constructed oﬃces and the Medical and Health Department constructed a hospital over an extent of Acs.2.00 of land without acquiring the same, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition after the death of his father. Prior to the ﬁling of this writ petition, the petitioner caused legal notice, dated 12.11.2001 issued to the respondents, to which, no reply was given by the latter. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.4 on behalf of himself and respondent No.1, he inter alia denied the allegation that respondent No.1 illegally and unauthorisedly occupied Acs.2.00 of land over and above Acs.6.10 guntas of land acquired in 1960. He averred that even prior to the acquisition of Acs.6.10 guntas of land, there was a school building existing in Survey No.1051 and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated after excluding the land occupied by the said building and that various Government buildings were constructed over the land admeasuring Acs.6.10 guntas acquired by the Government. He also averred that while the oﬃce of the Block Development Oﬃcer and staﬀ quarters were shown existing over Acs.6.00 of land, a school building was shown to be in existence in the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in the pahanies for the years 1965-66 to 1976-77. Having regard to the stand taken in the counter- aﬃdavit, this Court by order, dated 24.04.2007 called for a detailed report as to whether the utilization of the land by the respondents was restricted to Acs.6.10 guntas or in excess of the same. Respondent No.4 accordingly, submitted a report after getting the land surveyed through the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, along with the survey report contained in letter, dated 22.06.2007 addressed to him by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. In his report, respondent No.4 had given details in a table, a perusal of which shows that in the land admeasuring Acs.6.10 guntas, MDO’s Oﬃces and Quarters; Road Extension; Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Oﬃce and Agricultural Assistant Director and Mandal Godowns and Government Hospital were shown to exist. He had separately shown in the same table that Acs.2.09 guntas of land was occupied by the following structures. Sy.No. Particulars Extent Ac. Gts. Total Ac. Gts. 1051/C New Primary School Building area 0-22 1-29 1051/D Old School Building & Open place 0-28 1051/E MDO’s Office place 0-19 1-29 1130/C Government Hospital area 0-20 0-20 Grand Total 8-19 This report is based on the letter addressed by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to respondent No.4, which is enclosed with a sketch. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the proposal sent by the Block Development Oﬃcer on 10.09.1957 and the sketch enclosed to the requisition sent to respondent No.4 show that a school building was already in existence. He submitted that the father of the petitioner donated the land for construction of a school building and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek compensation for utilizing the land in excess of Acs.6.10 guntas of land. I have carefully perused the sketch, on which, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj placed reliance. As a fact, a copy of the sketch ﬁled by the petitioner shows existence of school building even in 1957. The theory of a gift in the absence of a proper document executed by the donor cannot be accepted, more so, when it came from the State. But, however, the fact remains that a school building was already in existence, when the acquisition proposals were sent by the Block Development Oﬃcer in 1957. Even the report submitted by respondent No.4 to this Court and as extracted above, clearly shows that the old school building with open place accounted for Ac.0.28 guntas. If the father of the petitioner had not agreed for parting with the said extent of the land for the purpose of construction of the school building, there was no reason why during his lifetime, he had not insisted for acquisition of the said land till 1985, when he ﬁled Writ Petition No.766 of 1985 on the plea that further constructions are undertaken over and above the land of Acs.6.10 guntas acquired by the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am prepared to accept the plea of the respondents that with the permission of the father of the petitioner, a school building was constructed by the respondents. To that extent, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation. After excluding the above-mentioned extent of Ac.0.28 guntas of land, there will still remain Ac.1.21 guntas of land. In the above-mentioned report of respondent No.4, an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas of land is occupied by new primary school building, Ac.0.19 guntas is occupied by MDO’s oﬃce and Ac.0- 20 guntas is occupied by Government hospital. The report clearly reveals that these extents fall outside Acs.6.10 guntas of land acquired by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that either the petitioner’s father or the petitioner himself donated any part of this land. Therefore, it is not permissible for the respondents to deny compensation to the petitioner in respect of an extent of Ac.1.21 guntas of land. As the petitioner’s right is protected by Articles 300A and 31A of the Constitution of India, the action of the respondents in utilizing the above mentioned land of the petitioner without acquiring the same is illegal and unconstitutional. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. A mandamus is, therefore, issued to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.1.21 guntas of land as mentioned above and complete the acquisition proceedings within four (4) months from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni