High Court Rules State Must Pay 1976 Land Compensation To Petitioner With Statutory Interest

In a significant ruling addressing a 50-year-old land acquisition grievance, The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has directed state authorities to settle outstanding compensation from 1976. The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan emphasized that the State cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility to ensure landowners receive their dues, holding that the failure to facilitate payment after taking possession violates the fundamental spirit of property rights.

A Half-Century of Inaction The dispute originated in 1976 when the government initiated the acquisition of approximately 4.95 acres of land in Martur Village, Prakasam District, for public purposes. Although an award was passed on April 9, 1976, and the land was subsequently distributed to the Vaddera community for housing, the original landowner never received the determined compensation. The matter remained dormant for decades until the legal heirs of the petitioner brought the issue before the judiciary in 2020.

Rival Arguments The petitioner contended that the entire acquisition process should be declared void, arguing that the failure to pay compensation necessitated fresh proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .

Conversely, the state government maintained that the acquisition was concluded in 1976 in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The government argued that since the compensation was deposited into the revenue accounts after the petitioner failed to claim it, the acquisition could not be deemed as having lapsed.

Legal Analysis and Principles Justice B. Krishna Mohan clarified that while the 2013 Act could not be applied retroactively to a completed 1976 acquisition, the state's failure to ensure the actual disbursement of funds over five decades constitutes a breach of constitutional duty . Citing the evolution of the right to property, the court reaffirmed that even though it is no longer a fundamental right , it remains a protected constitutional and human right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India . The judgment underscored that "the State cannot abdicate its constitutional and statutory responsibility of payment of compensation by stating that its role is limited only to initiation of acquisition proceedings and passing of the award ."

Key Observations The judgment highlighted several critical observations regarding the state’s behavior:

• "The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right , but also a human right ."
• "The value of money is based on the idea that money can be invested to earn a return, and that the purchasing power of money decreases over time due to inflation. What the petitioner could have bought with the compensation in the year 1976 cannot do in the year 2026 ."
• "Once the compensation has been determined, the same shall be paid immediately without any requirement of representation or request by the land owners and a duty is cast on the State to pay such compensation to the land losers, otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution."

Court’s Decision The High Court ordered the authorities to pay the original compensation amount of ₹31,377.75, supplemented by interest at a rate of 12% per annum calculated from April 9, 1976, until the date of actual payment. The court has allowed a two-month window for the respondents to comply, ensuring that the heirs of the original landowner receive justice for the long-delayed disbursement. This ruling serves as a stern reminder that the passage of time does not extinguish the state's fiscal and moral obligation to those dispossessed of their property.