IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Illegal encroachers cannot claim compensation and invoke Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

ORDER (COMMON)

All the petitioners are residents of the Gunadala area, Vijayawada and have filed a batch of writ petitions seeking to declare the proceedings dated 04.07.2023 issued by the respondent authority rejecting the request of the writ petitioners for the grant of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners are also seeking payment of compensation in terms of Act, 30 of 2013. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of the Gunadala area in Sy.No.284/4 and that they acquired the property through their ancestors. It is submitted that some of the petitioners’ forefathers have been living there for about 100 years or more.

3. It is also submitted that the Gunadala area was originally a Grampanchayat, which was merged into the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in the year 1981. Thereafter, 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.

4. 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. The petitioners submitted representations to the respondent authorities, duly informing them that the petitioners are landless poor people residing on the said land and eking out their livelihood by running shops there. Evicting them from their property would deprive the petitioners of their livelihood.

5. It is submitted that the petitioners are not against construction of the ROB, however, the respondents ought to have considered the longstanding possession of the petitioners over the property since time immemorial, the 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.

6. This Court, vide order dated 14.09.2020, directed the respondent authorities to follow due process of law. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the possessors of the property and residing in the said property since time immemorial. Section 3(n) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would define holding of land as the total land held by a person as an owner, occupant or tenant or otherwise. The petitioners claim to have acquired the property from their ancestors, and they are also paying taxes as assessed by the respondent authorities. The petitioners are also issued electricity and municipal water connections, as such, the occupation of land by the petitioners cannot be considered as encroachment or illegal occupation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in LAO-Cum-RDO Vs. Mekala Pandu and others, 2004 (2) ALD 451. It is submitted that the encroachers are also entitled to the issuance of a notice, and the respondents are under a moral, legal, and social obligation to follow due process of law in evicting any encroacher.

8. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot be considered as encroachers on account of the petitioners’ continuous, uninterrupted and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the property for more than the last 100 years. It is submitted that the respondents are obligated to, in essence, follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transp