Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
Mamidi Subbamma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5001 of 2019
Decided On : 25-11-2020
LAND ACQUISITION - RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - SECTION 11(1) - ACQUISITION OF LAND - DELAY IN INITIATING LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - COURT DIRECTS AUTHORITIES TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought a declaration that the respondents' failure to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act) for the acquisition of their land was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners' land was initially excluded from acquisition under the old Act due to its location below the Full Reservoir Level (FRL) contour. However, subsequent inspections revealed that the structures on the land were submerged due to backwater from the Somasila Project Reservoir. The petitioners made representations to the authorities requesting acquisition of their land, and the government granted permission for the acquisition in 2017. Despite this, the authorities had not taken any steps to initiate the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities had failed to take any steps to initiate the land acquisition proceedings despite the government's permission and the petitioners' representations. The court held that the authorities' inaction was illegal and arbitrary and violated the petitioners' rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities' failure to initiate land acquisition proceedings was illegal and arbitrary? 2. Whether the petitioners' rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India were violated?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 11(1), which mandates the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after receiving a request for acquisition. The court also considered the government's permission granted in 2017 and the petitioners' representations as evidence of the urgency of the matter. The court held that the authorities' inaction was a clear violation of the petitioners' rights to property and livelihood.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to initiate the land acquisition proceedings under the Act within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The court also directed the authorities to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGMENT
D.Ramesh, J. - Heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of proposed respondent.
2. The Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking steps for acquisition of petitioners land in an extent of Ac.1-49 cents along with 51 structures covered by Survey No.3/1 and 22/2 of Rangampalli village, Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 inspite of permission was accorded by the 1st respondent vide memo.No.30021/LA/A2/2015, dated 20.10.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate the land acquisition proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [ for short 'the Act'] for acquisition of the subject land.
3. According to the averments made in the affidavit, all the petitioners are residents of Rangampalli Village, Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District; by constructing houses, they are living in the said village and doing agriculture in their respective lands. The 4th respondent had issued a notification on 09.01.1991 proposing for acquisition of lands covered by Sy.No.3/1 and 22/2, including other survey numbers under Somasila project and as per the procedure contemplated under the old Act. The authorities passed an award No.5/1993-94, dated 24-01- 1994 and while passing the award, the 4th respondent had excluded the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.1-04 cents covered by Sy.No.3/1 and an extent of Ac.0-45 cents in Sy.No.22/2, holding that the petitioners' lands were below Full Reservoir Level [FRL] (+330) contour. After land acquisition award passed by the 4th respondent, by excluding the properties of the petitioners in Survey Nos.3/1, 22/2, the petitioners have raised constructions/houses and living in the said constructions/houses.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the award passed by the 4th respondent, dated 24.01.1994, there is categorical finding that "all the low level pockets in the valery portions at 330 feet contour will only be considered after investigation, at a later date and requested to take action as per the revised requisition."
5. In view of the observations made in the earlier award it is clear that they have not totally deleted these lands, and acquisition of the said land will be considered subsequently after thorough inspection. While that being so, the structures in the said land are sub-merged with back water of Somasila Project Reservoir. Hence, all the villagers including the petitioners have submitted a representation to the 4th respondent, to acquire the said lands.
6. Basing on the representation made by the villagers, the 4th respondent had conducted a joint inspection along with respondents No.5 and 6 and submitted report on 23.11.2011 showing the nature of the structures and plinth area of each structure and by noting that there are 17 structures in Survey No.22/2 were existing below FRL i.e. (+330) contour and 34 structures in Survey No.3/1 are above FRL.
7. Basing on the joint inspection report dated 23.11.2011 the 4th respondent has submitted letter on 10.12.2015 to the 1st respondent. Basing on the report and the letter submitted by 4th respondent, the 1st respondent had issued a memo No.30021/LA/A2/2015, dated 20- 10-2017 wherein, after careful examination of the proposal and taking into consideration of the reports of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the 1st respondent, accorded permission to acquire the left over lands duly following the provisions under the Act, 2013 to an extent of 1.49 acres and 51 structures, since the back water of the Somasila P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
