When the state admits to land acquisition but fails to provide evidence of compensation payment to the original owner or their heirs, the claimants are entitled to have their representations for compensation considered by the competent authority.

:: O R D E R ::

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue any appropriate Writ order or direction essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the Land compensation to the petitioners for the Land acquired to an extent of 3 Acres 39 Guntas out of the land to an extent of 4 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy.No.78 of Dornakal Village and Mandal, Warangal District, acquired by the State for construction of Double Line between Kammam and Dornakal on Dornakal Vijayawada Section, at the present prevailing Market value, and as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and in violation of principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents to pay the land compensation to the petitioners for the land acquired to an extent of 3 Acres 39 Guntas out of the land to an extent of 4 Acres 20 Guntas in Sy.No.78 of Dornakal Village and Mandal, Warangal District, acquired by the state for construction of Double Line between Khammam and Dornakal on Dornakal Vijayawada Section, at the present prevailing market value and as per the provisions of the land acquisition Act, 1894, and pass…

2. Heard Ms.Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. B.Kavitha Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and Ms.Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the grandfather of the petitioners, Sri Banoth Bojya, was the owner of the subject land measuring 3 Acres 39 Guntas, which was standing in his name. The said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Railway Doubling Line between Khammam and Dornakal on the Dornakal-Vijayawada Section, way back in the year 1963. However, it is the case of the petitioners that no compensation was paid for the said acquisition either to the original owner, Sri Banoth Bojya, or to any of his legal heirs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the year 1965 onwords, the petitioners have been making repeated representations before the respondent authorities seeking payment of compensation in respect of the said land acquired by the respondents. However, the said representations have not been considered.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners also submitted a detailed representation on 25.09.2013 before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 requesting them to award and disburse the compensation in their favour, but no action has been taken thereon.

6. As evident from the material placed on record the subject land was admittedly acquired for the purpose of doubling the railway line during the years 1962–1963. However, there is no evidence to establish that any compensation was paid to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-title. Despite the matter being pending since 1962–63, the respondent authorities have not placed any material before this Court demonstrating payment of compensation to the original owner or to any person claiming through him.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners shall submit a fresh representation along with all relevant particulars relating to the land acquired and supporting title documents, before respondent No.3 i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer and LAO, Mahabubabad, Warangal Distict (Presently Mahabubabad District) within a period