Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 143
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
K.Sai Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, Nampally, Hyderabad - Respondent
W.P. No. 11215 of 92
Decided On : 03-20-95
Advocates Appeared :
Sri C.V. Narayan Rao
Headnote:LAND ACQUISITION ACT, and CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Arts.21, 31-A (1) and 300-A - lands belonging to agriculturists takenover by authorities for construction of percolation canal without initiation of proceedings under the Act Action of authorities is violative of Arts.31-A(1) and 300-A and the Act - Authorities are liable to pay reasonable compensation to owner for unlawful deprivation of their property for more than 6 years.
HELD: In this case, the property of the petitioners was taken away by the executive act on 20-1-1989 unsupported by and in excess of the authority conferred by the Land Acquisition Act and Article 300-A of the Constitution and therefore it is permissible for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
No material is placed before the court except the self-serving statement, to show that the petitioners gave their consent to take over the possession of the lands on 20-1-89. Secondly, assuming that such a consent was given by the petitioners to take over the possession of the land, that itself will not be a valid ground for the respondents to take over the possession of the land without Initiating the land acquisition proceedings as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. The action of the respondents in depriving the property of the petitioners cannot be supported and is liable to be condemned as unconstitutional and violative of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Petitioners are agriculturists and they solely depend upon agriculture for their livelihood and sustenance. From 20-1-89 they have been deprived of their only source of livelihood without authority of law and without paying any compensation though they are entitled to the compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value as provided under second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by the executive action of the State.
Having regard to the nature and productivity of the lands, it can be said that the petitioners would have approximately derived a net income of Rs.5000/- by cultivation per acre and per year, had they been in actual possession of the lands. The petitioners have been dispossessed from the lands for the past more than six years. Rs.30,000/- per acre will be just and reasonable compensation for the unlawful deprivation of the property of the petitioners.
( 1 ) WHEN this case was heard, the caution noted by Lord Hewart in his book "the New Despotism" (1929) that bureaucracy had become true rulers, of the country and which caution led to several reforms in the Administrative Law of England, loomed large in the mind of the Court. With the advent of the Indian Constitution, the Indian people thought that (heir person and property are protected and they can be deprived only in accordance with law. That constitutional belief has been belied by the bureaucrats in this case. This case highlights how irresponsible bureaucrats who are meant to respect and implement the law do something in utter violation of the law and the Constitution and sit quite comfortably without least botheration to introspect their illegal actions and undo the thing which ought not to have been done.
( 2 ) THE petitioners 9 in number are joint pattedars of 15 acres 13 guntas of wet agricultural land comprised in Survey Nos. 630, 631, 632, 633, 646 and 647 of Rampally Diara (Kalimguda) village of Keesara Mandat of Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners are agriculturists and the land was under their personal cultivation before the same was taken over forcibly and without authority of law by the respondent No. 1 the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, I. E. Sub-Division, Hyderabad on 20-1-1989.
( 3 ) IT is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that after the first respondent forcibly and without authority of law took over the possession of the land on 20-1-1989, the petitioners received notices dated 4-3-1989 from the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district stating that the lands in question were under acquisition for carrying out the work for formation of a percolation tank and directing the petitioners to appear before him on 10-3-1989 and submit their claims. On 10-3-1989 the petitioners met the third respondent to enquire about the alleged acquisition of their lands, but the third respondent did not give them any hearing and the petitioners were forced to go out of the office without being informed about the particulars of the alleged land acquisition. When the construction activity was started in the second week of March,. 1989 under the supervision of the Governmental authorities, the petitioners protested to the officials presented at the construction site and their attempt to stop the construction went in vain. Thereafterwards the petitioners filed O. S. No. 22/89 in the court of the learned District Munsif, Medchal, Ranga Reddy district. In the said suit they filed LA. No. 112/89 and the learned District Munsif granted an interim injunction against the Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district. Later on, the petitioners were advised that the suit filed by them was not maintainable and in pursuance of that advice they withdrew the suit on 19-7-1990. During the fag end of 1991 the petitioners came to know that the respondent No. 1 had forcibly and without authority of law took over possession of the lands and he was the officer incharge for the construction of percolation tank. Therefore the petitioners immediately contacted the respondent No. 1 and made enquiries about the taking over possession of the land. But, the respondent No. I did not give them any correct information about the acquisition of the land. Under those circumstances, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 30-5-1992 to the first respondent calling upon the latter to inform them whether any land acquisition proceedings were initiated of not and asking him to deliver back the possession of the lands to the petitioners if no proceedings are initiated to acquire the land. Since the first respondent and other Governmental authorities failed to respond to the requests of the petitioners, they were constrained to file the writ petition in this court on 2-9-1992 seeking a d
