IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Gangavalli Badarinadh S/o Late Pattabhi Rama Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principle – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2510 of 2013
Decided On : 12-10-2022
A.P. Land Reform Act, 1974 – First Appeal – Facts of case as submitted by Counsel for Writ Petitioner are that Grand-Father of Writ Petitioner herein is absolute owner of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S, District – Held, Court is constrained to hold that the Official Respondents have miserably failed to prove that Ac.5-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Krishna District has been orally gifted in favour of the Government/Pancyayat for public purpose – Court further holds that Writ Petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation for the land taken by the Official Respondents for construction of water treatment plant and over head tank etc., in an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S., Krishna District – Court also holds that in view of admitted fact that the 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 Petitioner of an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S. of Village Krishna District except in accordance with law – Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Heard Smt. Siva Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramesh Katikaneni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner 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 Petitioner are that the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner herein is the absolute owner of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; that the Official Respondents have occupied an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5-17 cents and illegally constructed Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project 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.4-17 cents; that, this land was being used for rearing cattle and sheep by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner, late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao; that, this land is adjacent to the village; that, this land devolved upon the mother of the Writ Petitioner, and thereafter upon the Writ Petitioner, being the only son; that, as such the Writ Petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.5-17 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 Petitioner have also shifted their place of residence to Vijayawada while being in possession and enjoyment of the said vacant land; that, the Writ Petitioner had approached the Respondents on number of occasions to find out the reason as to why they forcibly occupied the land and constructed Water Tank and Filtration plant 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 was constrained to file a Suit for Injunction bearing O.S.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru; that in the said Suit (O.S.No.84 of 2012), the Official Respondents filed a Written Statement acknowledging that the Grand- Father of the Writ Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 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 twofold:
(ii) not to interfere w
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 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.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.