THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 8942 of 2011 ORDER: These 27 petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in highhandedly interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner in respect of Sy. Nos. 85 to 88, 90, 544, 550 to 559, 575, 580, 584 to 595 situated at Bommanapalli & Bandarupalli villages which are forming part of Raincheruvu of Rekonda Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioners submit that they are all small farmers and pattedars of small extents of land situate in various survey numbers referred to supra and that they are cultivating these lands as the respondent authorities have permitted them to cultivate in view of the fact that these lands have not been submerged while increasing the retention capacity of Raincheruvu of Rekonda village. It must be noted that the petitioners in paragraph (3) of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition have stated that these lands have been acquired by a notification which was gazetted on 7.6.2007, for a public purpose viz., improving Raincheruvu of Rekonda village village for drinking water purposes. Upon acquisition of these lands, Raincheruvu of Rekonda village was handed over to rural water supply department, which intended to increase the height of the weir for the purpose of augmenting the storage capacity. This scheme has been implemented for the purpose of providing drinking water to Indurthi (xxxxx) and 30 others habitations around. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Sub-Division at Husnabad, Karimnagar District has pointed out that a sum of Rs.1,20,43,450/- was paid to 88 beneficiaries as compensation as is evident from the acquittance roll bearing dated 6.2.2008. By virtue of this payment, it is obvious that the acquisition proceedings have been completed. Thereafter, these lands vest in the government free of all encumbrances. It is for the government to utilize these lands for the purpose for which they were acquired. However, some of these lands have not suffered submergence whereas lands of some others in Bommanapalli, Rekonda and Bandarupally villages have been submerged. Since the petitioners herein who were earlier owners of these lands upon noticing that these lands have not been submerged started cultivating them. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply has been objecting to this activity of the petitioners essentially for two reasons. (1) That carrying on cultivation in the acquired lands by the petitioners is impermissible, for they lost their right, title and interest in the said land upon receipt of compensation for the acquisition of the lands. (2) Cultivation will invariably be associated with use of manure, fertilizer or pesticides. If ultimately these lands were to get submerged, the residue of the manure, fertilizer or pesticides will seep into the drinking water storage and consequently those to whom the waters will be supplied later on will be exposed to the risk of gastroenteritis and or various other similar ailments. Therefore, the Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, is objecting to the petitioners carrying on their cultivation. I find considerable force behind the objections raised by the Deputy Executive Engineer. The petitioners, whatever rights that they had over these lands have been extinguished by virtue of the notification in the Gazette No. 29, dated 7.6.2007 whereby and where under these lands have been acquired by the State. The State has got a right to acquire private property for any public purpose subject of course to payment of appropriate compensation. In the instant case, compensation also appears to have been paid up as early as on 6.2.2008. It is obvious that the petitioners herein have already been adequately compensated. It would be a different matter for the petitioners to raise a dispute with regard to the inadequacy of the compensation received by them. That aspect will be dealt with in a separate forum and that does not give them a right to squat on the property which stood vested in the State Government. The rights whatever the petitioners possess earlier stood extinguished by compulsory acquisition of these lands by the State by virtue of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the petitioners are very rightly objected to for carrying on agricultural operations in their lands. No exception can be drawn thereto. However, Ms.V.Jayasree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners makes a very passionate plea that the petitioners have worked so hard for the past over three months and raised crops on these lands and which are just about to be harvested, it will be unfair, to deny them the fruits of their hard labour. Without expressing any opinion on this passionate plea, I find that a reasonable period of time if granted to the petitioners, they may voluntarily disconnect their emotional attachment on the lands. For that purpose, I consider it appropriate to give them time till 30.4.2011. If the petitioners harvest their crop as it is said that there is standing crop on the land, the respondents may not object to their harvesting the crop in the meantime. However, the petitioners have no right to object the respondents from utilizing the lands unhindered with effect from 1.5.2011 even if they have not harvested. It is also made clear to the petitioners that they should not make any further attempt to enter upon the lands for carrying on agricultural operations or otherwise henceforth. The writ petition stands disposed of with this order. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 15th April 2011