IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4274 of 2002 Between: 1 Magatapalli Narasimha Murthy S/o. late M.Kameswara Rao R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 2 Magatapalli kama Raju S/o. late M.Kameswara Rao R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 3 MagatapalliMallikarjuna Rao S/o. late M.Kameswara Rao R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 4 Magatapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o. late M.Kameswara Rao R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 5 Magatapalli Siva Rama Gupta S/o. late M.Kameswara Rao R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 6 Magatapalli Hari Babu S/o. late Narasimha Murthy R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. 7 Magatapalli Sankara Rao S/o. late Sambamurthy R/o. D.No. 6-3-27, Near Ramakrishna Theatre, Srikakulam-532 001. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3 The Project Administrator and Superintending Engineer, I & CAD, Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam-532 001. 4 The Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. T.RAJASEKHARA RAO FOR MR.G.SURAPU NAIDU Counsel for Respondents 1 TO 4:AGP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in utilizing the land admeasuring Acs.2.30 cents comprised in Survey Nos.340/3, 344/1, 344/3 and 347/1 of Patha Srikakulam Municipality, Srikakulam, without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and paying compensation to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioners are the owners of the above-mentioned extent of land, which was utilized by the respondents for improving left flood bank of Nagavali River from KM 6.13 to KM 6.69 under Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project. Despite the petitioners’ repeated requests for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, no steps were taken by the respondents in this regard. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the above-mentioned facts have been admitted. It is averred therein that due to unprecedented cyclone, which occurred in May, 1990, the flood protection works were severely damaged in the State in general and in Srikakulam, in particular, and, therefore, the State Government undertook Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project work with World Bank financial assistance for reconstruction of damaged flood protection works; that a masonry wall was raised as a part of reconstruction work in order to protect the lands in the area from severe floods and that as the said work is in the best interests of the people, which will protect their lives and properties, no compensation was payable. It is further averred that with the said works undertaken by the respondents, the value of the lands of the petitioners have got increased. It is admitted in the counter- affidavit that the father of petitioners 1 to 5 requested the department for payment of compensation and that on being explained about the importance of the work, he did not persist with the said request and that as an after thought, the petitioners have been making their claims for compensation. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners made their representation on 19.11.1999 to which the respondents have replied that it was not possible to pay compensation. The respondents have also taken the stand that if the petitioners have insisted on payment of compensation in the beginning, the department would have dropped the flood protection work. It is also averred that the petitioners have approached this Court after long lapse of time. I have heard Sri T.Rajasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 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 way of inserting Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. From the counter-affidavit referred to above, it is evident that the land of the petitioners has been utilized for construction of flood bank. This being so, it is the constitutional obligation on the part of the respondents to utilize the land of the petitioners only after following the procedure prescribed by law. The only procedure that is prescribed by law is to acquire the land by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act, unless the landowner volunteers to give away the land without demanding any compensation. On the respondents’ own showing, the father of petitioners 1 to 5 made a demand for payment of compensation. Their plea that he subsequently got convinced and did not make a further demand is a mere assertion without proof. The petitioners who succeeded to the land through their respective fathers have admittedly started making demands for initiation of proceedings under the Act and payment of compensation. Thus, when the landowners are not willing to part with their land, without being compensated under the provisions of the Act, the respondents cannot deny payment of such compensation in accordance with law. The assertion that execution of the flood bank work will benefit the petitioners by way of increase in the value of the remaining lands cannot be appreciated in law. The provisions of the Act do not exempt the State from the obligation of initiating proceedings and paying compensation even if in a given case, owners of the properties, which are utilized for a public purpose, will indirectly benefit due to increase in value of their remaining lands. The further stand of the respondents that, if they have known that the petitioners would demand compensation, they would not have taken up the work only reflects their lack of sensitivity in addressing the problems of people at large. In a welfare State, it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the life and property of its subjects. The flood bank work is intended to achieve these objectives. This being so, it is not expected of the respondents to come out with the above-mentioned stand. It sounds strange that the respondents expected the petitioners to sacrifice their interests in the personal property in the Government’s effort to prevent floods from occurring in the area. Irrespective of whether the petitioners are the indirect beneficiaries of such works, the respondents are bound to compensate them for the properties utilized for such public works. The objection of the respondents that there was delay in the petitioners approaching them for payment of compensation can be referred only to be rejected. Even according to the respondents, right from the time of petitioners’ fathers, demands were being made for payment of compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the lengthy correspondence that has taken place inter se within the Revenue Department. At any rate, when the respondents have failed to discharge their constitutional obligation of acquiring the property by following due process of law, it is not permissible for them to raise jejune ground of the so-called delay in the petitioners approaching this Court to espouse their legitimate cause. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the above-mentioned land and complete the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni