IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Ganja Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.35588 of 2018
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Passbooks Act, 1971 - Section 3(3) --Acquisition of Land - Claim of Compensation - Held, no notice was issued or no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 4 of Act, and no such proceedings have been filed along with counter affidavit by respondents herein - Therefore, mere contentions raised in counter affidavit does not substantiate that they have followed due procedure of law in evicting wife of petitioner herein - At outset, after summing up of facts and law as there is no proof was filed that DKT patta which was issued in favour of petitioner's wife was cancelled under due procedure of law, therefore, Writ Petition filed for relief for payment of compensation, the petitioner is entitled - Petitioner is entitled for compensation and the respondents are hereby directed to initiate compensation proceedings in view of Act 30 of 2013 and respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents herein to pay compensation for the land acquired in Sy.No.105-15 of Chinnapanduru Village, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, on 20.01.2005. It is the case of the petitioner herein that an extent of Ac.1.00 of land was issued in favour of the wife of the petitioner herein and a DKT patta was also issued in her favour and as the wife of the petitioner has left the companion of the petitioner herein and he does not know the whereabouts of the wife of the petitioner herein, he made a representation to the respondents herein to transfer the patta in his name and accordingly, the Tahsildar has issued pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner herein by deleting the name of the wife of the petitioner herein, viz., T.Desamma. It is further case of the petitioner herein that since mutating the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records that he is in possession of the property and the said property was acquired by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) Limited to provide the same to M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited for establishment of Modern and State of Art Tyre Manufacturing Plant. It is the case of the petitioner herein that suddenly the respondents have entered with the JCB and Hitachi vehicles into the lands of the petitioner herein and developed work has taken place and no compensation was paid unless this Court interdicts in favour of the petitioner herein refraining the respondents from illegally entering into the lands and carrying out the land development works, the lands will be lost forever and it would cause irreparable loss and hardship and therefore prayed to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession of the property or else to pay compensation as per the Act 30 of 2013.
3. The Revenue Department has filed counter along with vacate stay petition contending that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati, had made a requisition for acquisition of land for establishment of Industrial Park in Chinnapanduru Village of Varadaiahpalem Mandal for an extent of Acs.374.16 cents. In the said acquisition, including the writ scheduled property in survey No.105/15 in an extent of Ac.1.00 was acquired. The then Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, has sent proposals for the ex gratia, vide proceedings Roc.No.A/398/2016 dated 16.05.2016 mentioning the writ schedule land in Sy.No.105/15 in an extent of Ac.1.00 as Assessed Waste Dry Land (AWD). The stand of the respondents is that originally DKT patta was assigned in the name of T.Desamma, wife of Kailash, who is the wife of writ petitioner herein, for an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.121-15, whereas it was later rounded off the survey number 121/15 and re-write as Sy.No.105/15 in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and the name of DKT Pattadar as T.Desamma was rounded off and the name of T.Kailash was remain as it was earlier duly added. The then Tahsildar in collusion with the writ petitioner has entered the name of the petitio
B.Adinarayana Murthy v. Collector, Ananthapur District and another
LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu and others
Section 4(1)(b)(ii), but the Government raised a plea that the petitioners are not entitled to restore the land in view of the amendment of Section 4 by Act No.8 of 2008.
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.