Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Gangavalli Badarinadh S/o Late Pattabhi Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2565 of 2013
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226, 19(1) (f), 300-A, 32, 31 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -A.P. Land Reform Act, 1974 - Cause of action – Claiming Compensation - Right To Property in India -Right to Constitutional Remedies - Freedom of speech and expression - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue writ -Saving of laws providing for acquisition of - Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents to pay compensation by invoking provisions of Land Acquisition Act and to pass such other order or orders as this Court deem fit and proper in circumstances of case –Held, Court is constrained to hold that Official Respondents have miserably failed to prove that has been orally gifted in favour of Government Pancyayat for public purpose - Court further holds that Writ Petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation for land taken by Official Respondents for construction of School Building in an extent of Ac. 0-15 cents out of Ac. 4.00 cents - Court also holds that in view of admitted fact that subject land belongs to Grand- Father of Writ Petitioner and this Court having rendered a finding that Official Respondents failed to prove any conveyance by Grand-Father of Writ Petitioner in favour of Official Respondents, said Official Respondents shall not interfere with possession of Writ Petitioners of an extent of Ac. 3-85 cents, District except in accordance with law –Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
1. Heard Smt. Siva Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramesh Katikaneni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:
3. The facts of the case as submitted by the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners are that the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner No. 1 herein is the absolute owner of Ac. 4.00 cents in R.S. No. 319/2 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; that, the said extent has devolved upon the father of the Writ Petitioner No. 1 and Writ Petitioner No. 2 by inheritance; that, the Official Respondents have occupied an extent of Ac. 0-15 cents out of Ac. 4-00 cents and illegally constructed a School Building without following due procedure and without paying any compensation as per law; that, they are further threatening to occupy the balance land to an extent of Ac. 3-85 cents; that, this land was being used for rearing cattle and sheep by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner No. 1, late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao; that, this land is adjacent to the village; that, as such the Writ Petitioners are the absolute owners of Ac. 4-00 cents; that, during the course of time, due to various reasons, the cattle and sheep could not be maintained and that the family of the Writ Petitioners have also shifted their place of residence to Vijayawada while being in possession and enjoyment of the said vacant land; that, the Writ Petitioners had approached the Respondents on number of occasions to find out the reason as to why they forcibly occupied the land and constructed School Building without following the due process of law, but in vain; that, as the Respondents are proposing to occupy the balance of remaining land, the Writ Petitioner No. 1 was constrained to file a Suit for Injunction bearing O.S. No. 82 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru; that in the said Suit (O.S. No. 82 of 2012), the Official Respondents filed a Written Statement acknowledging that the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner No. 1 late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao made an Oral Gift to the State Panchayat for the welfare of the general public, and since then the land got vested with the Government/Panchayat; that, request made by the Writ Petitioners to furnish any documentary evidence evidencing oral conveyance proved futile as the plea of the Official Respondents is that it is by Oral Gift that the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner No. 1 has conveyanced this land to the Official Respondents for the benefit of public; that the Official Respondents have also raised an alternate and inconsistent plea that the subject land was surrendered as excess land under the A.P. Land Reform Act, 1974 and, that as there was no response to the Legal Notice dated 10.12.2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is two fold:
In the absence of documentary evidence, the official respondents failed to prove the oral gift of the land to the government/panchayat for public purpose.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
Forceful dispossession and use of private land for public purpose without following due process of law violates the constitutional right under Article 300A, and delay cannot negate the claim for comp....
Point of law: Act of the appellant-State Government is arbitrary and illegal in denying the compensation to the real owner.
The acquisition proceedings under Award No.12/83 were held not to lapse in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and they will continue.
The court emphasized that land acquisition must follow due process, and failure to do so renders the acquisition invalid, protecting the property rights of individuals.
The State must compensate landowners for land acquired for public use, as the right to property is a constitutional right that cannot be extinguished by delay or adverse possession.
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
