Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar, JJ.
Subhiksha Social Service Society, Nagulapadu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Revenue Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No.157 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04.2021
Employment and Service - Transfer of properties - Averments in affidavit filed in support of this Public Interest Litigation filed by Social Service Society show that 2nd respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation purchased of land for construction of bus stand and a depot - Later on a bus stand was constructed in land admeasuring of land and remaining extent is lying vacant from date of its purchase - On coming to know about same petitioner-society made an application to 2nd and 3rd respondents for usage of said land for raising bio diesel plants and fodder plants - 3rd respondent by his letter addressed to Joint Director Animal Husbandry Guntur stated that request of petitioner cannot be considered as they intend to use it for other activities - As land was not put to use for considerable period of time petitioner-society made another application for allotment of said land to raise bio-diesel plants but there was no reply from 2nd respondent - While matters stood thus it has come to knowledge of petitioner that 1st respondent is trying to take over vacant land of 2nd respondent for allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under Scheme – Hence present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging same –
Finding of the Court:
Respondent Nos.1 and 4 filed their counter disputing averments made in affidavits filed by petitioner and also averments in counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 - From a perusal of averments made in counter filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it is very clear that said land though not used but still required for constructing a depot - Though Government Pleader tried to contend that land was assigned to APSRTC by State Government but material on record clearly discloses that same was acquired by them which is evident from Award passed - As observed earlier entire extent of acquired land was not put to use and only a part of land was used for construction of R.T.C. bus stand - Merely because remaining portion of land acquired by APSRTC was not put to use it cannot be said that said land is of no use to APSRTC - Usage of entire land for a particular purpose may not be known on date when it was acquired but definitely more than requirement is normally acquired keeping in view future needs - Having regard to growth which is noticed over a period of time State Road Transport Corporation felt that remaining land has to be used for a particular purpose - It could be for expansion of existing bus station or for constructing a commercial complex so as to generate income for corporation - Having a commercial complex in and around bus station is not a strange phenomenon - Judicial notice can be taken of fact that number of shops eating kiosks/entertaining centers have come in many a bus stations/railway stations – Therefore act of Government in trying to take over land for purpose of allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under Scheme in court view cannot be countenanced – Hence argument of learned Government Pleader that land can be taken by Government for purpose of a scheme as it is not put to use though many years have elapsed from date of its acquisition/assignment cannot be accepted –
Result: Writ Petition is allowed
ORDER :
C.Praveen Kumar, J.
1. The action of the 1st respondent in trying to take away the property of the 2nd respondent admeasuring Ac.3.23 cents situated at Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District and trying to use the same for issuance of house site pattas, is subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of this Public Interest Litigation, filed by Subhiksha Social Service Society, show that the 2nd respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) purchased Ac.5.53 cents of land in Sy.No.83/1 of Pedanandipadu Village, Guntur District in the year 1985, for construction of bus stand and a depot. Later on, a bus stand was constructed in land admeasuring Ac.2.30 cents of land and the remaining extent is lying vacant from the date of its purchase. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner-society made an application to 2nd and 3rd respondents for usage of the said land, for raising bio diesel plants and fodder plants. The 3rd respondent by his letter, dated 27.10.2009, addressed to the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Guntur, stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as they intend to use it for other activities. As the land was not put to use for considerable period of time, the petitioner-society made another application for allotment of the said land to raise bio-diesel plants, but, there was no reply from the 2nd respondent. While matters stood thus, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is trying to take over the vacant land of the 2nd respondent, for allotment of house sites to landless poor persons under “Pedalandariki Illu Scheme”. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed challenging the same.
3. The main contention of Ms. Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, land which is meant for construction of bus depot or for any other purpose, which is beneficial to the public at large, cannot be acquired for house site pattas. According to her, though the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent i.e., District Collector, Guntur, requesting him to drop the proposal of taking over the said land for issuance of house site pattas, the revenue officials are leveling the land and taking steps for distributing the land to landless poor persons. It is further urged by her that even the petitioner made a representation dated 24.02.2020, requesting the 4th respondent not to take over the land of the 2nd respondent, as the residents of Pedanandipadu Village would be put to loss in getting employment opportunities, but there was no response to the same.
4. A common counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In paragraph-3 of the counter it has been specifically stated that APSRTC has acquired land in the year 1988 vide Award No.6 of 1988 dated 04.04.2018 and an amount of Rs.1,43,421/-was paid as compensation. After construction of a bus stand, the remaining portion of the land was kept vacant for construction of a garage and other developmental works. The Tahsildar was also informed about the manner in which the property came to be acquired by the APRTC. The averments in the counter also show that APSRTC is trying to construct a bus depot with electrical buses, to cater to the needs of commuters of surrounding towns under FAME-II Scheme of Central Government, to reduce green house gases emitted by diesel/fossil fuels. The Regional Manager has addressed a letter to the District Collector requesting him to drop the proposal as the said land is essential for the construction of bus depot to cater to the needs of commuters of the surrounding towns. Similar such letter was addressed by the Executive Director (A), APSRTC House, Vijayawada, requesting the District Collector to drop the proposal of taking over the above site. It is further stated that mere merging of the employees of the APSRTC into the Government service does not automatically amount to transf
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
