SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Madar Khan Gari Shag Khan S/o Madar Khan Gari Rasool Khan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21012 of 2021, 576 of 2020, 13270, 20022 of 2019, 33373 of 2015
Decided On : 08-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P. Nagendra Reddy.

Point of law: when once the proceedings are completed, the question of application of Section 101 of Act No. 30 of 2013 does not arise.

Headnote:

Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 16 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Recovery of land - Land Acquisition - Petitioners are owners of land of an extent of Village District - In year said land has been acquired by Government for purpose of construction of staff quarters of Irrigation Department - Though respondents passed acquisition proceedings but possession was not taken and accordingly petitioners have been cultivating land - Authorities have acquired several lands in locality apart from petitioners land but they constructed only four staff quarters in neighboring land of an extent cents and they are in dilapidated condition as they were not occupied because project work is completed - Petitioners are ready to repay compensation amount together with interest as per prevailing market rate.

Finding of the court :

Question emerges whether Government can assign land to erstwhile owners - It is settled law that if land is acquired for a public purpose after public purpose was achieved rest of land could be used for any other public purpose - In case there is no other public purpose for which land is needed then instead of disposal by way of sale to erstwhile owner land should be put to public auction and amount fetched in public auction can be better utilised for public purpose envisaged in Directive Principles of Constitution - In present case what court find is that executive order is not in consonance with provision of Act and is therefore invalid - These Division Bench is well justified in declaring executive order as invalid - Whatever assignment is made should be for a public purpose - Otherwise land of Government should be sold only through public auctions so that public also gets benefited by getting a higher value.

Result : Petition Dismissed.

ORDER :

1. All these five writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by different petitioners, claiming identical relief, as such, I find it expedient to decide all the five writ petitions by common order, since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same. W.P. No. 21012 of 2021 is taken as leading case.

W.P. No. 21012 of 2021

2. One Madar Khan Gari Ishaq Khan and three others filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of Respondent No. 1 in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 permitting the second respondent to take advance possession of the land before considering the request of the petitioners for recovery of the land to the petitioner for not utilizing the acquired land for specific purpose as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set-aside G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021.

3. The petitioners are the owners of land of an extent of Ac. 0-65 cents in Sy. No. 1227/C2 of Velugodu Village, Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool District. In the year 1984, the said land has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of staff quarters of the Irrigation Department. Though the respondents passed acquisition proceedings, but the possession was not taken and accordingly the petitioners have been cultivating the land. The authorities have acquired several lands in the locality apart from the petitioners land, but they constructed only four staff quarters in the neighbouring land of an extent of Ac. 0-10 cents and they are in dilapidated condition as they were not occupied because the project work is completed. The petitioners are ready to repay the compensation amount together with interest as per the prevailing market rate. But, the first respondent did not pass any orders. Subsequently, the petitioners and others made representation on 27.07.2015, but the authorities have not considered their request.

4. Neighbours of the petitioners filed W.P. No. 13270 of 2021 before this Court and the same is pending. In the said writ petition, the second respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the first respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 permitting the second respondent to take advance possession of the same. The new Land Acquisition Act i.e. The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act No. 30 of 2013’) came into force after repealing the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act No. 1 of 1894’). Therefore, at present, Act No. 30 of 2013 has to be implemented for the land acquired during the old Land Acquisition Act i.e. Act No. 1 of 1894. As per the existing law, the authorities are required to return the land when it is not used for specific purpose. Admittedly, the petitioners land is not utilized for the purpose of for which it was acquired and at the same time, the petitioners request is pending before the respondents and before considering the request, the first respondent erroneously issued G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 permitting the second respondent to take advance possession of the land for the purpose of allotting the same to house sites to the poor under the scheme Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu. Therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 without disposing request of these petitioners is illegal and arbitrary and if G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 is allowed to be implemented, it would defeat the rights of these petitioners who are in possession of the property due to non-utilization of the property for the purpose for which it was acquired and therefore, G.O.Ms. No. 128 Revenue (Assn.V) Department dated 13.02.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as claimed in the writ petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Rev

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top