HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21349 OF 2000 % 25th July, 2008 # Kairam Laxminarsaiah and another. …Petitioners. A N D $ The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District and others …Respondents <GIST >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION ? CASES REFERRED: (2003) 2 SCC 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21349 of 2000 Between: 1 Kairam Laxmi Narasaiah S/o Yella Goud R/o Village Kalamadugu, Mandal Jannaram, Adilabad District. 2 Kairam Venkata Rajan @ K.Venka Goud S/o Kairam Bhuma Goud, R/o Village Kalamadugu, Mandal Jannaram, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer cum the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Nirmal Division, Adilabad District. 3 The District Collector Adilabad District. 4 The Assistant Director, Surveyor and Land Records Adilabad, Adilabad Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition illustrates the apathy of executive apparatus in meeting the legitimate demands of the people who were deprived of their lands without paying compensation to them but enriching those who were unconcerned with the properties taken over by the respondents for execution of a road work. The petitioners are the owners of lands admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey Nos.37 and 33 of Kalamadugu Village, Jannaram Mandal, Adilabad District respectively. On the ground that the said lands were utilized for formation of road, the petitioners approached the respondents for payment of compensation. As their request went unheeded, they filed Writ Petition No.18855 of 1999 in this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed in the said writ petition, it was admitted that on the representation made by petitioner No.1, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jannaram was asked to get the lands demarcated and it was found by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, who surveyed and demarcated the lands, that the above mentioned lands belonging to the petitioners are covered by the PWD road from Indhanpalli to Kalamadugu and that while sending the said report of the Assistant Director along with the old and new SDRs, the Executive Engineer (R&B), was requested to submit his remarks. It was stated that the Executive Engineer in his letter, dated 21.04.1999 submitted that the road is passing through the lands to the extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Survey No.33 and Ac.1.23 cents in Survey No.37, for which, compensation amount has not been paid and he requested for taking necessary action for payment of compensation. It was also stated in the said counter-affidavit that the proposed road was not formed in accordance with the original SDR approved by the Collector, Adilabad in the year 1976 and that no objections were filed by anyone including the petitioners with regard to payment of compensation. It was further stated therein that the District Collector vide his reference, dated 28.07.1999 called for details of the case from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial and also instructed to process the land acquisition case duly obtaining the requisition and funds from the Executive Engineer (R&B), Mancherial and that the matter is under active persuasion. An objection was also raised in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were dispossessed 18 years back and that the writ petition filed after long lapse of 18 years was not maintainable. Having reproduced the above-mentioned contents of the counter-affidavit in his order, the learned Judge disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider representation, dated 30.07.1999 of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Purporting to comply with the said direction, respondent No.1 - the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial issued the impugned proceedings, dated 10.04.2000, wherein the claim of the petitioners for compensation was rejected on the ground that they failed to make a claim for compensation at an appropriate time and, therefore, such a claim made after a long lapse of time was liable for being rejected on the purported ground “delay defeats equity”. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have carefully considered the reasoning of respondent No.1 and in my view, the same is wholly iniquitous and irrational. The facts, which are stated above, clearly demonstrate that the respondents committed a faux pas in identifying the land for acquisition. On their own showing, the land, which was surveyed for the purpose of formation of road and approved by the District Collector, was excluded and the lands of the petitioners were acquired. Indeed, the record reveals that the land admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas belonging to petitioner No.1 was earlier notified for acquisition, but, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the same was de- notified under the Government Order issued in Memo No.2503/R-III/1/1979, dated .07.1979. Though the right to property was initially recognized as a fundamental right by our Constitution, by the 44th amendment, the same was deleted from Part III of the Constitution and shifted to Part XII by inserting Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, right to property remains a constitutional right, though not a fundamental right. But Article 31A occurring in Part III forbids acquisition of an estate which includes any agricultural land occupied by cultivators, agricultural labourers and village artisans under any law at a rate less than the market value thereof. By the mandate of these Articles, the State shall not deprive a person of his property save by due process of law and by paying compensation equal to the market value of the property. Whenever the State requires the property of a citizen, it is bound to pay the owner of the land the due compensation either through private negotiations or by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. Thus, the burden is solely rested on the State and its Officers to follow due process of law for acquiring the private lands of the citizens. In this case, admittedly, the respondents failed to follow such process and utilized the lands of the petitioners for a public purpose, namely, formation of road. In the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, they have realized their mistake in not notifying the properties of the petitioners and had even committed themselves to initiate the process of land acquisition by referring to proceedings, dated 28.07.1999 of the District Collector. But, in the impugned proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer made a total volte-face in denying the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation on the unwholesome plea of purported delay. He failed to realize that the dicta of the Supreme Court, on which he placed reliance, does not absolve the State of its pious constitutional obligation of paying compensation to the owners of the private lands, if the same are required for any public purpose. The said reason put forth by respondent No.1 betrays his lack of comprehension of law, under which, as stated above, the State is bound to pay the just compensation to its citizens for taking away their property. He is oblivious of the correct legal position regarding delay. The ground of delay is ordinarily relied on by the superior Courts in order to refuse to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction vested in them either under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India. Even while applying this doctrine, the Courts have found exceptions and one such exception is that where the third party rights have not crept in, the factum of delay is ignored. (See Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,). Respondent No.1 failed to realize that he cannot assume the role of a Constitutional Court and deny the just compensation payable to the owner of a private land, which is admittedly, utilized for the purpose of formation of road, on the purported ground of delay. At any rate, having not succeeded in persuading this Court to dismiss the earlier writ petition on the ground of delay, it is not open to the respondents to reject the just claim of the petitioners on that ground. The respondents who exercise sovereign functions of the State are duty bound to respect the valuable rights of the citizens conferred on them by the Constitution. They shall do well to realize that they are only the servants of the Government, which is of the people, by the people and for the people. When a citizen approaches them with a grievance, it is their constitutional obligation to redress the same and ensure that the citizens receive justice according to law. If they turn a blind eye to the just grievances of the citizens, their very existence in the offices they hold becomes meaningless, the very purpose, for which the great organic document viz., our Constitution, is created, is floundered, the People’s faith in the rule of law is eroded and their clamour for justice remains a far cry. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to initiate immediate steps for acquisition of lands admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas and Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey Nos.37 and 33 of Kalamadugu Village, Jannaram Mandal, Adilabad District belonging to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall complete the land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation according to the market value existing as on the date of notification to be issued, within a period of twelve (12) weeks. Despite a chance having been given by this Court to the respondents to take corrective action, they muffed up by refusing to pay compensation on specious ground. The petitioners are dragged into another round of needless litigation. Therefore, I feel it appropriate that the petitioners shall be paid the costs of Rs.10,000/- each by respondent No.3 within four (4) weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall identify the Officers, who are responsible for not acquiring the petitioners’ lands, and recover the costs from them. Liberty is also given to the respondents to recover the amount from the persons to whom compensation was wrongly paid though their lands are not acquired. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th JULY, 2008. Kvni L.R.Copies to be marked.