HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28585 of 2011 Date: 28.11.2011 Between: Kopolu Bindu Malini ..... Petitioner AND State of A.P. Reptd by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P., Hyderabad and four others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mattegunta Sudhir Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Municipalities The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the petitioner’s property admeasuring 1,440 square feet or 160 square yards comprised in Survey No.148 of Ongole Municipality as illegal and arbitrary. It is the admitted case that the above-mentioned property of the petitioner was taken over for laying a link road from S.B.I. Colony to National Highway No.5 without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Feeling aggrieved by the non-payment of compensation in respect of the said land, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Ongole Municipality, respondent No.5, while stating that a road was laid for which the petitioner’s property was utilized, it is averred that he has followed the procedure under Section 42 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, by depositing a sum of Rs.16,40,000/- in the name of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, as per the directions of respondent No.3 and that, he has also forwarded the proposal to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad, for necessary action. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No.5 stated that he is ready to pay the compensation amount of Rs.16,40,000/- to the petitioner, which is already deposited as per the determination made by respondent No.3, after obtaining the permission of respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri M.Sudhir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is ready and willing to receive the above-mentioned sum of compensation. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.5, stated that while respondent No.5 has no objection for payment of the said sum to the petitioner, he is awaiting approval from respondent No.1. In my opinion, before a private property is taken possession, it is the obligation of the State or its instrumentalities to either acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act or pay compensation with the consent of the land owner. Section 42 (2) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, needs to be construed in the above fashion. Otherwise, forcible taking over of private land will fall foul of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. While it is admitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, respondent No.5 has expressed inability to pay the amount because of pendency of the proposal with respondent No.1. On these admitted facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to finalise the proposal sent by respondent No.5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (2) If respondent No.1 approves the proposal of respondent No.5 for compensation of Rs.16,40,000/-, as per the determination made by respondent No.3, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within one month after such decision is taken; and (3) Conversely, if the proposal sent by respondent No.5 is not approved by respondent No.1, proceedings under the Act shall be initiated within a period of three months and the same shall be completed within a period of two months thereafter and compensation shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.35297 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th November 2011 DR