THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5400 of 2006 Date: 22-12-2009 Between: Gajjala Nagaiah … Petitioner And Sri K.Venkateshwarlu and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5400 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2006 and consequently declare the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action in pursuance of representation dated 09.02.2006 as bad in law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to recover 36% per annum on the compensation under Land Acquisition Act with effect from 08.12.2005 for payment to the petitioner in pursuance of Rc.No.B/2061/2004, dated 09.12.2005 on the file of the 1st respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of land to an extent of 20.37 guntas in Survey No.116, 102, 102A etc., situated at Nambala Village, Rebbana Mandal, Adilabad District and he is cultivating his land. It is submitted that in the year 1965 the Irrigation Department forcefully came and informed that they are acquiring lands for restoration of “Chakali Kunta” and its restoration work was allotted to a contractor, with an assurance to pay compensation in future and accordingly the land was handed over to the contractor for the said purpose on 01.05.1966, in spite of protest and unwillingness. It is also submitted that as the Irrigation Department failed to discharge their statutory duties under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), he was constrained to file W.P. No.26573 of 1997 for payment of compensation under the Act. As per the directions of the Court, the District Collector, Adilabad submitted his report dated 24.01.1998 observing that the lands were not taken into possession but accepted that the lands are getting submerged. Eventually, the Court held that if the submergence was there certainly the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation. Therefore, it was made clear that the writ petitioner can possess the land and cultivate the same whenever possible. In case he does not cultivate the land due to submergence it is open for him to claim damages after assessment by the authorities. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rebbana and the Revenue Divisional Officer inspected the lands and assessed damages to the tune of Rs.21,80,655/- and the same was submitted to the District Collector, Adilabad vide Rc.No.B/250/98 dated 10.01.2002. Thereafter, though he made a representation for payment of compensation or damages, the respondents did not take any steps for payment of compensation, hence, he again filed W.P. No.23099 of 2003 for consideration of his representation. Wherein, the Court directed the respondents therein to dispose of the representation dated 14.10.2002 and the respondents failed to take any further steps. Therefore, he filed C.C. No.1518 of 2004. Eventually, the respondents issued notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act and published the same in Adilabad District Gazette on 02.03.2005 and 04.03.2005, respectively. Thereafter, the 1st respondent dispensed with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking Section 17(4) of the Act and award was passed on 09.12.2005. Though the award was passed, the 1st respondent did not pay the compensation and referred the matter under Section 31 of the Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad and playing delay tactics. Therefore, the petitioner again made another representation dated 09.02.2006 to the respondents to take immediate steps for pursuing the case and also requested to pay 36% per annum of penal interest from 08.12.2005 till the payment of the actual amount through cheque petitions. Though the respondents have received the representation dated 09.02.2006 of the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps to pursue the case, pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, denying the averments of the petitioner, counter has been filed, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is the owner of the land in Survey No.116 to an extent of Acs.9.18 guntas only but he is not the owner in respect of Survey No.102 situated at Nambal Village of Rebbena Mandal. It is also submitted that the Irrigation Department with the consent of the petitioner took the above said land for the purpose of restoration of chakali kunta. It is also submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the Court in WPMP.No.39926 of 1998, the 1st respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, had sent a letter dated 10.01.2002 along with the S.D.R. and report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rebbena regarding assessment of damages to the District Collector, Adilabad for passing necessary orders for further course of action. The respondents are discharging their duties as per procedure and there is no delay on the part of respondents to pass the award. Further, it is also submitted that immediately after receipt of orders passed in W.P. No.23099 of 2003 dated 28.11.2003 the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent giving the particulars of the case and requested him to initiate L.A. proceedings and accordingly the action has been taken to pay the compensation to the petitioner and award was passed. In response to the notice issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner along with his counsel attended the award enquiry. They were explained to opt for consent award or award under Section 11 of the Act. Some time after, the petitioner expressed that he is not willing to put signature on statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner also requested the petitioner to opt any of them. But he denied his words. At last he left the enquiry without intimation. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to refer the matter to the Court. Further, it is necessary to comply with the orders passed in C.C. No.1117 of 2005, the award has been passed and referred the same to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act as the petitioner was not willing to receive the compensation. As such, said amount of compensation deposited in Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Asifabad on 09.12.2005. The Court vide Lr.No.L.Dis.423/2006 dated 27.02.2006 returned the matter by pointing out some defects found in form D and requested to resubmit the same. The defects have been attended and resubmitted the same to the Court vide Lr.No.B/2061/04 dated 16.03.2006 and it is for the Court to allot O.P. number. Under those circumstances, the authorities have not taken any action, in this regard, is not correct. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was acquired by the department without following due process of law provided under the Act. But thereafter, on the representation made by the petitioner, 4(1) notification was issued and dispensed with the 5-A enquiry and award was passed and the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. But after referring the matter under the sections referred to above, the respondents have not shown any interest for numbering the case. In view of the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.02.2006 and no action has been taken on the said representation. Hence, he approached this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 09.02.2006 of the petitioner, made with regard to the payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.12.2009 LSK