IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3125 of 2004 Between: Kasttineni Chenchu Reddy and another. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary, Revenue Department (LA), Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy. Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for R.1 to R.4. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.1.56 cents of land in Survey No.138/4A of Pernamitta village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. This case depicts sordid state of aﬀairs involving executive apparatus of the State in taking over the land of the private persons without any regard to the constitutional and statutory provisions and denying them the compensation. The petitioners are admittedly owners of the above mentioned extent of Ac.1.56 cents, which was part of Ac.70.01 cents acquired by the respondents under notiﬁcation dated 4-12-1986 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration dated 5-12-1986 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The petitioners along with others initially ﬁled Writ Petition No.17448 of 1986 questioning the said proceedings, which was allowed by this Court on 3-2-1989 by quashing the said notiﬁcation and declaration. The petitioners alleged that in spite of quashing of the said acquisition proceedings, the respondents highhandedly took possession of the land and respondent No.5 raised permanent constructions over the same along with a compound wall. Not left with any other option, the petitioners ﬁled another Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.16246 of 1994, which was disposed of by this Court on 14-9-1994 with the direction to the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within two months, communicate the Award and pay compensation to the petitioners. The respondents violated the said order brazenly by not initiating fresh proceedings and passing the award. Therefore, the petitioners ﬁled the present Writ Petition for the relief mentioned supra. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the above-mentioned facts were admitted. It is, however, stated that after quashing of the notiﬁcation and declaration in respect of a part of Ac.70.01 cents, awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer for an extent Ac.37.80 cents on 23-11-1988 and 8-12-1988; that respondent No.5 sent a fresh requisition for acquisition of Ac.32.21 cents, which include the above mentioned land of the petitioners; that based on the said requisition fresh draft notiﬁcation was submitted to the Government, which was approved by the Government, vide., G.O.Ms.No.1404, Food and Agriculture (Dairy-II) Department, dated 30-6-1992; that publication of the said notiﬁcation was completed on 9-11- 1992; and that, at that stage, one Sri Narne Kondaiah and four others ﬁled Writ Petition No.17478 of 1992. Similarly, another person, by name, Sri Indla Venkateswarlu, along with ten others, ﬁled Writ Petition No.14394 of 1993 and in both the said proceedings stay of all further proceedings, including dispossession, in respect of Ac.1.25 cents and Ac.1.30 cents was granted by this Court. It is further averred that subsequently respondent No.5 informed the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer that the area covered in the said two Writ Petitions was purchased by it and, hence, an extent of Ac.9.45 cents was deleted from the acquisition proceedings; that draft declaration was submitted to the Government after conducting enquiry under Section 5-A; and that publication of the said declaration was completed on 15-1-1994. It is further stated that the requisition department, i.e., respondent No.5, was requested from time to time to provide funds but they did not do so; and that when the Land Acquisition proceedings were in progress, the petitioners ﬁled Writ Petition No.16246 of 1994, which was disposed of on 14-9-1994 with the direction to the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings within two months. It is further stated that the petitioners’ land, to the extent of Ac.1.56 cents, is in the midst of the land admeasuring Ac.2.43 cents in Survey No.138/4 and another extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Survey No.138/4A for which awards were passed; that respondent No.5 constructed boilder shed in the lands belonging to other ryots situated in Survey No.138/4 for which awards were passed; and that even though possession of Ac.1.56 cents belonging to the petitioners was not taken by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, respondent No.5 constructed boilder shed on the said land also as the same was in the midst of Survey No.138/4. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that despite categorical directions given by this Court on 14-9-1994 in Writ Petition No.16246 of 1994, the respondents have not completed the acquisition proceedings and paid the compensation to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners’ land was notiﬁed in the year 1992. Despite lapse of 16 years, respondents have neither completed the acquisition proceedings nor paid the compensation. Not only that, the land was notiﬁed for acquisition, but the same was taken possession by respondent No.5 and constructions were made thereon. This action is expropriatory in nature and in ﬂagrant violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners. While Article 300A of the Constitution of India forbids the State to deprive a citizen of his property, save by due process of law, Article 31A of the Constitution, inter alia, declares that when property is acquired under any law, payment of compensation at the rate which is less than its market value is unlawful. Thus, the citizen is provided with constitutional protection to hold his property unless the same is acquired in accordance with law and is provided with suitable compensation equal to the market value. The provisions of the Act protect the interests of the land owners by placing the maximum time limit of one year for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act from the date of publication of notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act. These provisions are intended to prevent the State and its oﬃcers from prolonging the acquisition proceedings for unduly long periods and disabling the land owners from procuring alternative lands from out of the compensation that may be paid after long years after initiation of acquisition proceedings. In cases like the present one, where possession was taken long back and payments not made, the very purpose of the above referred provisions of the Act will be defeated. If the respondents pay this compensation after more than a decade, it becomes a pittance to the land owner and he will not be in a position to buy an alternative land with the compensation that is paid to him. Therefore, the Supreme Court and this Court in a number of cases held that superior Courts have the power to recompense for the loss sustained by the land owner on account of undue delay in completing land acquisition proceedings and paying compensation amount {See State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma [1], Ambalal Purshottam v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation[2], Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P.[3], Ram Chand v. Union of India[4], Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar[5], Mohmed Abdullah (died) by Legal Representatives v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad[6] a n d K.Sai Reddy & Others v. Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, I.B. Sub- Division, Hyderabad & Others[7]}. In view of the admitted fact that possession was taken and compensation amount has not so far been paid to the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pass award in pursuance of notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) in the year 1992 in accordance with Section 23 and 34 of the Act. In addition to the said amount, the respondents shall pay 12% per annum on the market value towards compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within eight {8} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------ -------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.14-8-2008 MNR [1] (1966) 3 SCR 557 [2] (1968) 3 SCR 207 [3] (1976) 1 SCC 843 [4] (1994) 1 SCC 44 [5] AIR 1984 SC 1767 [6] 1998 (4) ALT 568 [7] 1995 (1) ALT 673