HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1702 of 2007 Date: September 15, 2009 Between: 1. Dunnutala Jayamma and 439 others. … Petitioners And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by is Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard Sri Y. Venkata Satyam, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondents. 2. The counsel on record had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and made submissions. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying amounts to the petitioners structures/houses as per preliminary valuation statement of structures of Kudumulur village in Reach Nos.2 and 3 of Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary and violaive of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts to the petitioners structures/houses as per preliminary valuation statement of structures of Kudumulur village in Reach Nos.2 and 3 of Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District and pass such other suitable orders. 4. These writ petitioners had stated that some of them were granted D-Form pattas way back in the year 2001 and others in the year 2004 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District and these pattas were granted for the purpose of constructing houses in tune with the policy of the Government. It is also stated that the petitioners had raised structures and they were living in the said houses. 5. Further it is the case of the writ petitioners that the Government announced project by name Somasila Project in Kadapa District and for the purpose of the said project all the lands with house structures of the petitioners situate in Kudumulur village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District got submerged. 6. It is also stated that the Land Acquisition Officer, third respondent, had prepared preliminary valuation statement of structures of Kudumulur village for Reach Nos.II and III. Despite the amount being ascertained, except 30% of the solatium, no other amount had been paid to the petitioners. 7. Further it is stated that since the lands were acquired, the respondents are bound to pay compensation, especially, after preparing the estimate that is payable for deprivation. Only a part of the amount had been paid i.e., 30% solatium, and the rest of the amount was not paid. The petitioners are entitled for the amounts as stated in the proceedings of P.V. statement. 8. P.V. statement for payment of ex-gratia to structures and other relevant material also had been placed before this Court. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioners had unauthorizedly raised structures in the Government land i.e., hill poramboke in the year 1994 and applied to the District Collector, Kadapa for regularizing the unauthorized structures raised in the Government land. Accordingly, the unauthorized structures raised by the petitioners in the Government land were regularized and D- Form pattas were issued to them as per G.O.Ms.No.192, dated 02.12.1998. 10. Further it is stated that the Government vide memo No.2309/T.G.P.II-2/2004-1, dated 28.01.2004 had issued instructions to acquire Kudumalur village, but the village was not submerged as alleged by the petitioners. Compensation was paid for Reach-I as it is covered by patta lands and ex-gratia was paid for Reach Nos.2 and 3 as the petitioners raised structures in Government lands. The petitioners belong to Category IV. 11. It is also stated that the Government advised the Land Acquisition Officer to go for consent awards as was done to other 14 villages. In a similar case vide W.P.No.17825 of 2001 this Court disposed of the writ petition on 01.11.2001 holding that if the lands are belonged to the Government, the question of acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Proceedings does not arise and on the other hand if any structures are erected or any improvements made by the occupants on the Government lands, they are entitled for payment of ex-gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 and issued directions to pay ex-gratia. All the occupants of structures in Reach-III had taken ex-gratia without any protest and the occupants in Reach No.II had refused to take the ex-gratia. Since 135 structures are found motivated and structures constructed after 1999, ex-gratia was rejected by the District Collector, Kadapa. While the matters stood thus, 11 petitioners filed W.P.No.23709 of 2003 seeking a direction to the respondents to include the village for acquisition and subsequently the petitioners therein had withdrawn the said writ petition, as the Government had agreed to acquire the village. 12. It is also stated that the Government appointed Special Officers to complete acquisition of lands under Somasila Project for the remaining 23 villages vide G.O.Rt.No.802 I & CAD T.G.P-II/Dept. dated 30.10.2003, with certain guidelines for passing consent awards. As per the terms of G.O.Rt.No.802 I & CAD T.G.P-II/Dept. dated 30.12.2003, Special Officers were appointed to take up personal inspection and they are competent to effect necessary changes in the P.V. statements wherever necessary. To have a uniformity, a meeting was conducted by the Negotiation Committee with District Collector and the village committee members of different villages and it is resolved to pay ‘SSR rate of 2002-2003, and all the genuine structures’ shall be paid along with 30% and 12% additional market value and ex-gratia to be paid to all the bogus structures. Accordingly, the Special Officers verified the genuineness and categorized the structures into category III and IV. All the genuine structures included in category III were paid structures value with 30% solatium. But 12% additional market value not paid, since there can be no notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for Government lands and also as per the terms and conditions of G.O.No.192 I & CAD PR- T.G.P-II (2) Dept. dated 02.12.1998, read with G.O.Ms.No.1307 Rev. Assg-I Dept. dated 23.12.1993. Regarding oher structures kept in category-IV which are originally found ineligible as per the proceedings of the District Collector vide Ref.Rc.No.E6/2691/99, dated 05.10.2001 and the Special Officer recommended for payment of estimated cost of structures without 30% solatium, instead of rejecting any payment since the Special Officer has got the power to modify P.V. and the District Empowered Committee had resolved to pay 30% solatium and 12% additional market value to the genuine structures only, the petitioners who are in category-IV cannot claim 30% solatium. It is also stated that consent statements were also taken in Form-III and IV on par with other villages and payment was made in the year 2005. Having taken the ex-gratia, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. 13. Further it is stated that serious prejudice would be caused if any direction is to be given, since writ petitions will be filed in all cases in which the Special Officers acted upon as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Rt.No.802 I & CAD T.G.P-II/Dept. dated 30.10.2003 duly conducting meetings with village committees. Hence, the dismissal of the writ petition had been prayed for. 14. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the amounts in terms of the preliminary valuation statement have not been paid. Though some amount had been paid, the rest of the amount is not paid to the petitioners and the same is to be considered. 15. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no positive direction as such can be granted. However, in the light of the peculiar facts, let the petitioners make appropriate representation in this regard to respondents 2 and 3 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and let respondents 2 and 3 consider the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: September 15, 2009. BSB