A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to decide seriously disputed questions of fact.

ORDER

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not paying the compensation for the acquisition of land measuring Ac. 1-36 cents situated in Sy.Nos.720/ 1 and 721 in Prathipadu Revenue village, Guntur District.

2. This court has heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for revenue for respondents 4 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a private trust running a "Dharmasatram" / Choultry in the subject land and village. It is the owner of the land situated in Sy.Nos.720/ 1 and 721 in Prathipadu Revenue village, Guntur District. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent Corporation has taken over the said land and established a bus station therein but has not paid them any compensation whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the land has been taken over and the bus stand has been constructed for the benefit of the public the respondents are bound to pay the compensation to the owners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute about the essential facts and that as the land was highhandedly taken over by the respondents for construction of a bus stand, they are bound to pay the compensation. While repelling the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents on the grounds of delay etc., it is argued that if there is a blatant violation of the rights of the petitioner, the delay should not be a ground to throw out the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following five judgments, which are filed along with a memo to argue that the petitioner's rights cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay.

1) N. Ananda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021SCC OnLine AP 2679

2) Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2020) 2 SCC 569

3) The Secretary to Government of A.P., I & CAD, Department, Hyderabad and Others v Lavudi Lakya and others[1]

[1] W.A.No.548 of 2004 of High Court of A.P.,

4) E.P. Vinaya Sagar v Land Acquistion Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad and Others, 2008 SCC OnLine AP 56

5) Gourishetti Narayana v special Deputy Collector (LA & R & R) Sripadasagar (Yellampally) Project, Mancherial, Adilabad and Others, 2014 SCC OnLine AP 1416

4. For respondents 2 and 3-the State Road Corporation, the learned standing counsel Sri Durga Prasad argues that the land was "voluntarily" given by the trustees to the State Road Transport Corporation in 1988 and was not forcibly or highhandedly taken over. The bus stand was constructed in the year 1989. It is asserted that from that date till the Writ petition is filed the petitioners never approached the respondents or any authorities for compensation. Apart from that it is reiterated that the land was actually "donated" for the construction of a bus station. The bus station was constructed under the 'Telugu Grameena Kranthi Padham' and is being used since 1989. Since the land is donated at free of cost the question of payment of compensation does not arise as per him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the documents, which are annexed to the writ petition, to state that the land was donated by the trust. He relies upon the letter dated 07.07.1988 by which the Junior Engineer has taken over possession of the property. He also points out that in a letter addressed by the local MLA it is clearly asserted that the land is given free of cost 13 years ago. Lastly, learned counsel relies upon a letter addressed by two of the trustees, to the then Chief Minister, wherein it is mentioned that the land was given for construction of a bus station, on the condition that the State Road Corporation would reconstruct the old dilapidated choultry, which is standing there. Basing on these documents, learned counsel argues that the trustees have voluntarily donated