ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Gangavalli Badarinadh – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2510 of 2013
Decided On : 11-10-2022
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - ORAL GIFT - BURDEN OF PROOF - WRIT PETITION - MANDAMUS - ARTICLE 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RAJIV PILOT PROJECT - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ADANGAL/PAHAN - POSSESSION - INJUNCTION - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - DISMISSAL - SECOND APPEAL PENDING - ORAL CONVEYANCE - ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - FAILURE TO PROVE ORAL GIFT - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION - NON-INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSION - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's grandfather was the absolute owner of 5.17 acres of land in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District. The official respondents occupied 1 acre out of 5.17 acres and constructed a water treatment plant and overhead tank without following due procedure or paying compensation. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appeal. A second appeal is pending before the High Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to pay compensation for the land occupied and not to interfere with the remaining land.
Finding of the Court:
1. The official respondents failed to prove that the petitioner's grandfather orally gifted the land to the government/panchayat for public purpose. 2. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land taken by the official respondents. 3. The official respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the remaining land except in accordance with law.
Issues: 1. Whether the official respondents proved that the petitioner's grandfather orally gifted the land to the government/panchayat for public purpose? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land taken by the official respondents? 3. Whether the official respondents can interfere with the petitioner's possession of the remaining land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the official respondents to prove the oral gift. 2. In the absence of documentary evidence, the official respondents failed to prove the oral gift. 3. The petitioner is entitled to compensation under Article 31 of the Constitution of India for the land taken by the official respondents without following due procedure. 4. The official respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner's possession of the remaining land except in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The official respondents are directed to pay compensation for the land taken and not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the remaining land.
JUDGMENT
1. 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:
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in occupying and constructing Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project in extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5- 17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District without following procedure and without paying compensation as per law and further threatening to occupy remaining extent of Ac.4-17 cents, as illegal, aribitrary and violative of Article 31 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
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 GrandFather 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 dtd. 10/12/2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is twofold:
(i) seeking a direction to pay compensation in accordance with law for the land (Ac.1-00 cents) illegally occupied by the Official Respondents and constructed water treatment plant and water overhead tank; and
(ii) not to interfe
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....
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.
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
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.