THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.11896 of 2009 Date : 21-8-2009 Between: Shaik Basha s/o.late Shaik Mohammed Saheb .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep. by its Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District And others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.11896 of 2009 ORDER;- W.V.M.P.No.2151 of 2009 is filed to vacate the interim Order dt.25-6-2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.15325/2009 in W.P.No.11896/2009 and pass such other suitable orders. 2. This Court issued rule nisi on 25-6-2009 and granted order of status quo. When the vacate application came up for hearing, the Counsel on record made a request for the disposal of the Writ Petition itself and hence the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally at the request of the Counsel on record. 3. A Reply Affidavit also had been filed by the petitioner. 4. Sri Rama Mohan Mahadeva, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the land for laying the pipe line in an extent of about Ac.0.60 cents situated in Sy.No.416/1 being arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition to be allowed. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, counter affidavit and also the reply affidavit as well and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, Sri Raghunanda, the learned Counsel representing respondents 4 and 5 would maintain that though for the D.K.T.Patta lands, the parties are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever, however, the Corporation, as a matter of good gesture, had made certain payments as ex-gratia payments in the event of such parties producing acceptable material. The petitioner was not able to produce such material. 6. The learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition also had taken this Court through the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 7. Sri Rama Mohan Mahadeva, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner however had brought to the notice of this Court that at present Rs.40,000/- had been paid taking the extent as 0.40 cents only and for the rest of the 0.20 cents exgratia to be paid. The Counsel also submitted that on protest only the petitioner received the said amount of Rs.40,000/-. The same is recorded. 8. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.4 and 5 in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of his land for laying the pipe line in an extent of about Ac.0.60 cents situated in Sy.No.416/1, Gollahceemanpalli Revenue village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that his father later Shaik Mohammed Saheb was granted D.Form Patta in Sy.No.416/1 of Gollahceemanapalli village to an extent of Ac.4-80 cents on 30-10- 1977. Questioning the said assignment one Sri C.Venkatappa filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent declared the then Tahasildar, Palamner to re-assign the land to his father as he has no patta land at all. Later on the said C.Venkatappa filed revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same has been dismissed on 14-12-1978 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent. Though, the orders are in favour of petitioner’s father, the respondents did not implement the same. Further it is stated that the father of petitioner filed W.P.No.1307/1993 before this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the 3rd respondent in not implementing the orders passed by the 1st respondent dt.26-3-1992. This Court was pleased to admit the said Writ Petition and by order dt.25-3-1994, in W.P.M.P.No.21858/1993, granted interim directions to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 17-6-2007 which reads as hereunder:- “The petitioner filed this Writ Petition complaining that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not comply with the order of the Joint Collector and, thus, he seeks a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, to implement it. This Court sitting under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot grant such relief. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Joint Collector complaining the inaction of the Mandal Revenue Officer, who will in turn pass necessary orders. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.” Further it is stated that the petitioner made several representations through his wife to the 1st respondent complaining the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in implementing the order passed by the 1st respondent, dt.26-3-1992. All the representations made by the petitioner could not yield any result and there was no immediate action on his representations. However, the District Collector in his letter L.Dis.No.E9/1104/2008, dt.23-1-2008 requested the 3rd respondent to look into the grievance of the representations filed by the wife of the petitioner and also sought remarks from him. Thereafter there was no response either from the 3rd respondent or from the 1st respondent. While the matter stood thus, it is also State the 5th respondent is now laying pipeline from Chennai to Bangalore through petitioner’s land. It is also stated that there is a standing crop of sugarcane, paddy, tomato, flower crop etc. The 5th respondent made a requisition to the 4th respondent to aclquire the land or to obtain the consent from the owners of the lands to lay the pipeline and also to pay compensation to the owners of the land. Though the petitioner is in physical possession of the land and there is a standing crop, no notice is issued to the petitioner, nor any compensation is paid to him. Further it is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the action of the 5th respondent in laying the said pipeline through his land, he got issued an objection petition to the 4th respondent on 19-5-2009 and requested him to pay the compensation to him and not to pay the compensation to anybody. However, the 4th respondent is not at all acting on his representation and he is instructing the 5th respondent – his contractor to lay the pipeline through petitioner’s land. The 5th respondent’s contractor had already laid the pipeline just before petitioner’s land and they are digging the trenches adjoining his land and they may enter into petitioner’s land within a day or two by destroying the entire standing crop and without paying any compensation to the petitioner for the land as well as the standing crop, they are high handedly proceeding with the laying of pipeline. In those circumstances, the Writ Petition approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition wherein the interim Order of status quo as already aforesaid had been granted. 10. In the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.2151/2009, the Special Deputy Collector, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chittoor, who had sworn to the affidavit had stated in para 3 of the counter affidavit that according to the notification under Section 3(1) and under Section 6 of the above Act have been published in Government of India Gazette in respect of Patta lands covering in Sy.Nos.66/6, 66/4, 66/5, 65/5A, 5B, 2, 4B, 4C, 7, 3A, 71, 71/1 and 71/2 covering an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Wet/Dry lands in Gollacheemanapalli village of Byreddypalli Mandal. The Award has been passed in this office R.O.U.Case No.1/2009-10, dt.4-5-2009 and compensation at the rate of 10% of market value as per provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) has been paid to all the land owners. In respect of Darakastu Patta Land Holders and other Government lands, the District Collector, Chittoor in his proceedings G3/6818/08, dt.3-6-2008 has permitted to pay 10% of ex-gratia as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 to all eligible Darakastu Patta Land Holders after thorough enquiry and to pay 10% of market value in respect of Government Lands to the concerned departments. On receipt of orders from the District Collector necessary reports have been obtained from 3rd respondent on 4-5-2009. After receiving necessary report from the 3rd respondent, enquiries have been made in the village with ryots and village Revenue Officer and in this proceedings RCCA No.11/08, dt.9-5-2009 exgratia has been sanctioned to all eligible Darakastu Patta Land Holders. Accordingly, in respect of Sy.No.416/1 one Sri S.Rathnappa, S/o.Gangappa was granted Darakastu Patta for Ac.1.50 by Sub-dividing Sy.No.416/1 as 416/7 and in this S.No. The Tahasildar has recommended for grant of exgratia for Ac.0.73 cents and he was sanctioned an amount of Rs.14,600/- as exgratia. But at the time of distribution of cheques to the land owners, the Writ Petitioner’s relatives objected and represented that their land is also effected and re-survey has to be done and exgratia to be decided basing on the extent under their occupation and enjoyment. On their objection, this office Retired Deputy Inspector of Survey has been deputed along with Village Revenue Officer and in the presence of land owner and objectors the land has been got measured and the extents have been decided as detailed below: Survey No.416/7 (old survey No.416/1) Ac.0-12 Sree S.Rathappa 416/1 Ac.0-61 Assessed Waste Dry Total Ac.0-73 cents As survey No.416/1 is classified in village accounts as Assessed Waste Dry, the Writ Petitioner’s relatives who were present in the village at the time of distribution of cheques and also at the time of survey were informed that for Assessed Waste lands no exgratia will be sanctioned as he has no ‘D Form’ Patta and he has not got any right over the land to claim for sanction of exgratia. While things stood at that stage, the Indian Oil Corporation Construction Engineers and their staff have startedpjt work by clearing land and peg marking and on 20-6-2009, the Indian Oil Corporation Construction team reached survey No.416/1 Gollacheemnapalli village and writ petitioner’s representative K.Narasimhulu obstructed the IOCL Engineering Officials to go through the land and do project work saying that there is sugar-cane crop on ground and extent of Ac.0.40 cents of sugar-cane crop will be effected. On 23-6-2009 this respondent and Chief Construction Manager, IOCL, Chennai have visited the village and inspected the land and informed the said Narasimhulu to allow the Corporation Officials to do project work. But he stated that he is doing cultivation on behalf of Sri Sheik Basha and on his consent he has no objection to do the project work in the field. Thereupon this respondent and the Chief Construction Manager, IOCL, Chennai have contacted the writ petitioner over cell phone in the afternoon on 23-6- 2009 and he requested for sanction of crop damage to do project work. As per his request and since sugar-cane crop will be affected on ground in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, the Chief Construction Manager, IOCL, Chennai has agreed for payment of crop damage under Section 10(3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines Act, 1962 and he agreed to lay the pipeline. Accordingly, the IOCL Team prepared Panchanama e estimating the extent of crop damage and name of the crop and handed over copy of Panchanama to Sri S.Altaf who is the son-in-law of the writ petitioner and Sri K.Narasimhulu who cultivated the land also signed the crop damage report and after delivering the crop damage report, the IOCL Construction Staff removed the sugar- cane crop and marked the land on the ground and proceeded to the other fields to continue the project work in the village. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited removed the crop in the land on 23-6-2009. It is further stated that Sy.No.416/1 of Gollachemmanapalli village measuring Ac.3.30 stand classified in Village Account as Assessed Waste Dry and is vested in the Government. The writ petitioner has not been granted any ‘D' Form Patta by Tahasildar, Byreddipalli and his request for grant of compensation for the extent covered under R.O.U. by IOCL authorities cannot be complied with and the contentions put forth by the writ petitioner are not correct. The writ petitioner has no right to claim for exgratia under G.O.Ms.No.1306. Further it is also stated that as the writ petitioner has not been granted any ‘D' form patta, his report for sanction of exgratia has not been considered and his relatives were informed at the village at the time of distribution of cheques to eligible DKT land holders. This respondent is not aware with regard to the old facts of the case and this respondent has been authorized by the District Collector, Chittoor to sanction exgratia as per the eligible list furnished by Tahasildar concerned. It is also stated that as the writ petitioner raised sugarcane in Government land, taking into consideration the investment made and on humanitarian ground, his request for sanction of compensation for sugarcane is accepted and mahazarnama has been prepared for an extent of Ac.0.40 cents and the Mahazarnama copy has been delivered to his son-in-law on 23-6-2009 and the IOCL authorities removed the sugarcane crop and attended to clearing of ground and other related project work on 23-6-2009 itself. On 25-6-2009 this Court passed status quo orders and the orders have been received by this respondent at 4.00 p.m., on 27-6-2009 from the Collectorate. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited Construction Engineers have been instructed to implement the orders of this Court and no further work has been done. It is further stated that no work has been done after receipt of the orders of this Court. In this connection it is stated that even though the writ petitioner has no ‘D' form patta for the land in S.No.316/1 Ac.3.80 he has been sanctioned crop damage compensation for sugarcane in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents as per the estimated price of Agricultural Officer, Palamaner at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per one cent he will be paid Rs.40,000/- shortly on receipt of funds for IOCL, Chennai and this amount has been sanctioned taking into consideration the fact of his investment on crop even though he is not supposed to cultivate the land without ‘D' form patta granted by Tahasildar concerned, and in view of the fact explained above, the contentions put forth by the writ petitioner are not correct. Further it is stated that the writ petitioner has no right to claim for compensation for Ac.0.60 in S.No.416/1 of Gollachemanapalli village of Byreddypalli Mandal, as it is classified in Village Accounts as A.W.Dry and is vested with Government. The writ petitioner has no right to enter upon and cultivate the land without previous sanction from Competent Authority and to obstruct the Indian Oil Corporation Engineering Staff to do the project work which is being done after following due process of law under Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Line Act, 1962. If the petitioner has any grievance in getting ‘D' form patta from Tahasildar, Byreddypalli, he shall approach either the officials of Revenue Department and seek his grievance redressed and can claim for compensation if he has been granted ‘D' form patta by the authorities. In view of the facts and circumstances explained above the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition as he is not having DKT Patta and as encroahcer of Government land he has no to obstruct the IOCL authorities to stop project work. However, taking into consideration, the investment he made over raising sugarcane crop over the land, the IOCL has sanctioned compensation for sugarcane crop and Mahazarnama had delivered to his son-in-law on 23-6-2009. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 11. In the reply affidavit filed, it is stated that it is a fact that after identifying the lands, the 4th respondent herein issued a notificationaqg the lands for laying the pipeline. It is also stated that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.416/1 of Gollacheemnapalli village to an extent of Ac.3-72 cents by raising the seasonal crops on the same. It is also stated by the petitioner that the 4th respondent herein without mentioning his name as Pattadar/Enjoydars, issued a notification and passed an Award without issusing any notice to him as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 behind his back. The petitioner came to know about the same and made an objection before the 4th respondent by way of representation, but without considering the same, the respondents have proceeded with laying of pipeline upto his land and immediately the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. It is also stated that this Court initially granted one week time to the respondents for getting instructions, by order dt.18-6-2009. Inspite of the directions from this Court, the respondents did not report any instructions and again sought time and under those circumstances, this Court passed interim Order on 25-6-2009, directing to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. The petitioner is not aware of the allegation that the Award has been passed on 4-5-2009 and compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value as per the provisions contained sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962 has been paid to all the land owners. It is also averred that the allegation that one Sri K.Narasimhulu obstructed the IOCL Engineering Officials to go through the land and do project work saying that there is sugarcane crop in the land to an extent of 0.40 cents of sugarcane crop will be affected is true as the said Narasimhulu is his worker. Again on 23-6-2009, the 4th respondent and the Chief Construction Manager, IOCL, Chennai, have visited the land and informed to said K.Narasimhulu to allow the clrpn officials to do project work and he objected. It is further stated that without informing them, the Corporation officials proceeded with the project work by digging the land without proclainers. Inspite of the objection by the petitioners, they proceeded with the project work and destroyed the sugarcane crop, knowing fully well that there is an order of status quo from this Court. The other allegation that the 4th respondent and the Chief Construction Manager, IOCL, Chennai have contacted the petitioner over cell phone in the afternoon on 23-6-2009 and he requested them to pay the damages for the crop and agreed for laying the pipeline is true and the respondents approached the petitioner only after filing the Writ Petition. It is stated that inspite of petitioner’s specific request for payment of damages, the respondents did not accede to his request no doubt proceeded with the project work. It is also stated that inspite of receipt of the order of status quo from this Court, the respondents have proceeded with the laying of pipeline till 7-7-2009. Further it is stated that the petitioner is not aware of the allegation that Sy.No.416/1 of Gollacheemanapalli village, admeasuring Ac.3-30 cents stands classified in Village Account as ‘Assessed Waste Dry’ and is vested with the Government. The other allegation that the petitioner has not been granted D-Form patta by the Tahasildar, Byreddipalli Mandal, and on his request for grant of compensation for the extent covered under R.O.U. by IOCL authorities cannot be complied with and the contentions putforth by him are all false. In fact ‘D' form patta was granted by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Byreddipally Mandal, in favour of petitioner’s father to an extent of Ac.4-80 cents in Sy.No.416/1 of Gollacheemanapalli village and the possession of the same was handed over. Since then, his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death, the petitioner has been in occupation and enjoyment of the said land by raising the crops. Further the petitioner stated that he raised sugarcane in Government land is false and the other allegation that taking into consideration the investment made and on humanitarian grounds, his request for sanction of compensation for damage to the sugarcane is accepted and Mahajarnama has been prepared for an extent of Ac.0.40 cents and a copy of the same was issued to his son- in-law on 23-6-2009 and IOCL authorities removed the sugarcane crop and attended to clearing of ground and other related project work on 23-67-2009 is correct. In fact, the IOCL authorities have proceeded with the project work only after 26-6-2009 i.e., after passing of the orders of status quo by this Court. It is also stated that the petitioner’s son-in-law received the Mahajarnama on 23-6-2009. The other allegation that the order of staltus quo passed by this Court was received by the 4th respondent on 27-6-2009 at 4.00 p.m., from the Collectorate Office is false. In fact, the 4th respondent was aware about the status quo order passed by this Court on 25-6-2009 itself. Further it is stated that when respondents have proceeded with the project work without acceding to petitioner’s request, he was constrained to issue a legal notice, dt.27-6-2009 and the said notice was refused intentionally by this respondent and they proceeded with the project work. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right to claim compensation for Ac.0-60 in Sy.No.416/1 of Gollacheemnapalli village, Byreddipally Mandal, as it is classified in Village Account as “Assessed Waste Dry” and he has no right even to enter into the said land for cultivating the same without obtaining previous sanction from the Competent Authority and obstruct the IOCL authorities in proceed with the project work are all false and frivolous. In fact, the then Tahasildar, Palamaneer granted ‘D' form patta in favour of petitioner’s late father as stated above, the IOCL authorities themselves issued the proceedings, dt.23-6-2009, stating that Ac.0-40 cents of land is going to be affected. The other allegation that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the same are false, as the IOCL authorities have also issued proceedings stating that the land is in occupation of the petitioner is going to be affected. This is the stand taken in the reply affidavit. 12. It is however stated that at present for an extent of Ac.0.40 cents already Rs.40,000/- had been paid. No doubt, it is also stated that under protest the petitioner had received the said amounts. The specific stand in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is unable to produce any material even in relation to the claim of the ex-gratia to be payable to him. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the 4th respondent along with the material available with him praying for the ex-gratia payment for the left over extent, if any, within a period of four weeks and let the 4th respondent receive the same and take an appropriate decision in relation thereto within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Except making this direction, no further relief can be granted in this Writ Petition. It is needless to say that the interim Order granted by this Court is hereby vacated and subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 21st August, 2009 smr