2021 Supreme(AP) 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.Venkata Ramana, J.
Madde Sridevi and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.44006 of 2017
Decided On : 26-04-2021

Point of Law: petitioners being agriculturists cannot be expected to remain quiet. When the purpose of acquiring their lands has remained dormant and that they are not being put to use for the purposes for which they are intended to, finding their barren nature, the petitioners in all possibility and probability would have gone for cultivation of these lands. They are agriculturists who were cultivating and enjoying them prior to their acquisition.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition of land – Claim of compensation - Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation for wells trees etc upon acquisition of their lands including benefits in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Contention of petitioners is that in view of judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer which was confirmed in Civil Appeals by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court they are entitled for all consequential benefits under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners also contended that Government of A.P. issued Revenue Department directing payment of compensation whenever assigned lands are acquired on par with patta lands as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Therefore petitioners requested to direct payment of compensation for land trees wells and structures and that paying only excreta is bad and illegal –

Finding of the Court:

It is clear from material on record that other benefits which are consequential upon acquisition of land and which are corollary were not given to petitioners in nature of additional market value under Section 23(1-A) and interest in terms of Section 28 of said Act - It appears respondents have specifically contended in their counter that petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of these lands - But petitioners have denied it stating that canal has been dug through their lands by contractor - Petitioners being agriculturists cannot be expected to remain quiet - When purpose of acquiring their lands has remained dormant and that they are not being put to use for purposes for which they are intended to finding their barren nature petitioners in all possibility and probability would have gone for cultivation of these lands - They are agriculturists who were cultivating and enjoying them prior to their acquisition - Therefore in circumstances it is desirable to direct Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Project Nellore District to enquire into these questions of fact while fixing up benefits for additional market value in terms of Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If petitioners are in occupation of these lands cultivating and enjoying if it is brought out through such enquiry now proposed they cannot enrich themselves at expense of Government - In this process deduction should be made for such unauthorised use and occupation of petitioners from out of amounts now being directed to be paid to them - In process of such enquiry in case occupation of these acquired lands by petitioners Special Deputy Collector directed to take assistance of all concerned including Agriculture and Horticulture Officers for assessment of such damages for use and occupation –

Result: Writ Petition is disposed of