Registered ownership of property does not exempt one from government acquisition of land classified as government property, and petitioners must prove entitlement to establish right for compensation.

ORDER :

HARINATH N., J.

1. The petitioners are challenging the notice dated 29.07.2023 issued under Sections 405 and 406 of the APMC Act, 1955, by the 2nd respondent, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the site in their possession and proposing to initiate steps to demolish the construction over the said property. A consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners is sought for in the writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners received the notice dated 29.07.2023, duly intimating the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of land in Sy.No.247/2 and 248/4, which, according to the respondents, is Government poramboke land and that some of the occupants of the nearby areas had occupied Government land classified as Rivas Canal bund. The respondent No. 2 also intimated to the petitioner No. 1 that flat Nos.3 was allotted to the petitioner in Block – 1, 1st floor in New RR Pet, Phase – III and Flat No.8 was allotted to the petitioner No.2 in Block -2, 2nd floor in New RR Pet, Phase – III. The petitioners were required to hand over possession of the subject property and to occupy the allotted flat.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have bundled the petitioners' case with that of other encroachers of Government land and have denied the grant of compensation to the petitioners. The respondents have also not initiated any steps under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for acquiring the petitioners' land. It is also submitted that, on account of bundling the petitioners’ case with that of other encroachers in the Gunadala area, the petitioners were not paid any compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the property vide registered sale deeds dated 31.12.2014. The vendors of the petitioners had purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1991. It is submitted that the property of the petitioners is forming part and parcel of Sy.No.248/2 and that the petitioners are in occupation of the property, which was put in possession by the vendors of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners constructed shops over the same. It is submitted that the petitioners’ property was assessed for taxes, and they regularly paid the property tax. Prior to paying property tax to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the petitioners had been paying it to the Gram Panchayat.

5. As things stood, the respondent corporation intended to acquire the property for the construction of a railway over bridge (ROB), and the petitioners were informed that they were in occupation of government land and required to evict from the said land.

6. It is submitted that the petitioners are not against construction of the ROB, however, the respondents ought to have considered the valid registered title documents in favour of the petitioners and only way the petitioners could be evicted from the said property is by acquiring the property of the petitioners by invoking the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7. This Court, vide order dated 21.08.2023, granted a stay on the impugned notice, by which the petitioners were called upon to vacate the prope