Allowed

Danikela Uttamma v. the State of Ap., Revenue Dept and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2022WP/8769/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding land acquisition for Uranium Corporation, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed respondents to pay compensation for sweet orange trees based on an assessment of 4½ years age, rejecting a later revision to 2 years and ordering payment of the difference within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No. 2 and 3 directed to pay the difference in compensation to the petitioner in accordance with the report of the 4th respondent vide Roc.No.C/245/2005 dated 04.03.2005 within four weeks f

Danikela Uttamma Vs the State of Ap., Revenue Dept… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT -A, THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA V- 4t

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 8769 OF ?ni«;

¶6

Between:

¶7

Lalu Swamy, aged about 57 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o.M.Thummalapalli Village, Vemula Mandal, Pulivendula Taluka, YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh.Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur.. 2. The District Collector. YSR Kadapa, Kadapa District. d ^°'f^^-R®venue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District The Assistant Director. Horticulture Department, Kadapa. YSR Kadapa District MandaTvlRTaSpa dSpcT Vemula

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances statPd '"I" r ""'S' may be^Lsed to fss^ a wT ordtr or respondenTs hemin in Mandamus, declaring the action^ofthe respondents herein in not paying the compensation to the sweet orange trees Ivina in thp Indrum^ted aL wrnnnh for the purpose of Uranium Corporation the time ‘o1 crg^urg^L-ST^st^a^d^^of °yeaT SiS ‘aVI 18"oi^2014°a"nr?l^tf^R®''*N/^^ respondent in his letters^{Lr.Roc.No.E/248/2004dLd} 18 01 2014 and letter Roc.No.C/245/2005, dated 04-03-2015, declared the age of trees as respondent he submitted false report wNch is illegaf Artcle7'M'anflLn°hP^r°‘^H^^^ the principles of natural^{justiceandalsoinviolationJf} naw th Constitution of India and consequently directed the resoondents tn pay Ihe compensation to the sweet orange trees declanng the age of me “eeforanartrMs :rt'Si 4“e 28-01-2015 includina considering the petitioner representation^dated

¶11

LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 11566 OF 2Q1.<>)

¶12

ini “thfwm ’petlfcn^hTS'c ' d “I?™?'-'i" <he affidavit^hied direct^l the res^o^dlCl^llSdel^^relenltS^^^^^^^ RoInTeSSoI dltelTs-oTTou’^^^^^^ R and pass appropriate orders forthwith, pending dTspoTal of°the WruVlmfon'^^^' 04-03-2015,

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. CHALLA SIVASANKAR

¶14

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No 4 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SMT.V.SUJATHA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.8769 of 2015

¶21

ORDER: -

¶22

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article^226of

¶23

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶24

“to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{therespondentsherein} in not paying the compensation to the sweet orange trees lying in the petitioner lands in Survey No.43/1 extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situated at Meedipentla Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District,^{whichwasacquired} for the purpose of Uranium Corporation India Limited^{andwronglymentioned} the age of orange trees lying in the petitioner land^{atthetimeofacquiringthe} land instead of ‘5’ years mentioned as ‘2’ years and^{paidcompensation} subsequently the 4th respondent in his letters Lr.Roc.No^{E/248/2004dated} 18.01.2014 and letter Roc.No.C/245/2005 dated 04.03.2015^declaredthe age of trees as 4 % years due to threat from the 3'^^{respondenthesubmitted} false report, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust in^gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation^{of Articles14and16of the} Constitution of India and consequently directed the^{respondentstopaythe} compensation to the sweet orange trees declaring the^{ageofthesweetorange} trees as 4 ‘A years in Survey No.43/1 extent of Ac.2.00^{centssituatedat} Meedipentla Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District^{andalsodeclarethe} land as equivalent to the patta land as per market value and also pay compensation duly considering the petitioner representation dated 28.01.2015 including the interest from the date of^{acquiringthelandwithall} consequential benefits or otherwise petitioner will^{sufferseriouslossand} great hardship and pass such other order or orders^{asthisHon’bleCourtmay} deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that: the petitioner’s^husband i.e., Lalu Swamy being landless poor person acquired an extent^of Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.43/1 situated at Meedi Pentla^village,

¶26

¶27

Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District, in the year, 1990. Thereafter, he made an application in the year, 2000, requesting the authorities for issuance of pattadhar passbooks in his favour. The petitioner’s husband has been paying the taxes and thereafter, he also dug a bore-well in the said land and planted Sweet Orange trees in the year, 2001 by duly obtaining electricity connection from APSEB vide S.C.N0.34.

¶28

Thereafter, the respondents also i issued pattadhar passbook to the petitioner.

¶29

While the matter being so. in the month of December, 2007, a notification was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquiring the petitioner’s land for the purpose of Mining and Process plant for Uranium Corporation India Limited. As on the date of acquisition proceedings, the age of the Sweet Orange Trees planted in the petitioner’s land was 5 years. The Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Kadapa, on representation made by the petitioner assessed the age of the tress as ‘4 Va’ years.

¶30

The Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Kadapa, has also submitted a report confirming the age of the said 180 Orange Trees existing in the petitioner’s land i.e., i . in an extent of Ac.2.00 in survey No.43/I are five years old and have further stated that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of 180 number of Sweet Orange trees, aged ‘4 Vs’ years.

¶31

¶32

¶33

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner^has planted the Orange trees in the year, 2001 and as on the date of notification i.e., on 01-10-2007, the said Orange trees^wereaged about 5 years. The respondents immediately initiating the Land Acquisition Proceedings, have stopped the power supply to the bore-well and thereafter the surveyor surveyed the^said petitioner’s land and sent the report, wherein the age of the Orange trees was mentioned as ‘5’ years, but the Tahsildar, while estimating^thetrees have intentionally mentioned the age of the trees as^{‘2’yearsonthe} advice of the 3^^ respondent. The petitioner’s claim is that she is entitled for compensation to her land and also sweet^orange trees and also the bore-well laying in his land aged about ‘5’ years old from the respondent.

¶34

is that though the Further, grievance of the petitioner petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation^onparwiththe pattalands, in view of the Larger Bench Judgment of this court in Writ Appeal No. 170 of 2002 and W.P.No.5122 and 5534 of 1991 and batch reported in 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB). The petitioner^madeseveral representations and also issued a legal notice to the^{respondentsas} there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner^alsofiled W.P.No. 14994 of 2010 declaring the action of the respondents in not with her co-lands and also utterly paying the compensation on par mentioning the age of the Sweet Orange Trees as ‘2’^{yearsinsteadof}

¶35

¶36

‘5’ years and also not mentioning the bore-well in the said notification, in spite of petitioner’s repeated representations and the said Writ petition was disposed of on 07-02-2012 directing the respondents herein as under:

¶37

‘So far as the claim of the petitioner that there existed a bore-well and hat the same was not taken into account i IS concerned, it shall be open to her to make a representation in this regard. The respondents shall be under obligation to make a personal visit to the place and if the petitioner is able to establish the existence of bore-well, they shall be under obligation to pay exgratia for that also. ’

¶38

In pursuance of the Order passed by this court, the petitioner made a representation on 18-04-2012, to the RDO/Srd respondent herein requesting him to implement the orders passed by this court on 07-02-2007 and further requested to disburse the cheque amount already prepared.

¶39

In reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner on 29-06-2013, the 2’^^ respondent vide his proceedings letter in Ref.No.Gl/2979/2010 dated 04.07.2013 requested the 3rd respondent to take necessary action as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the AG., of Horticulture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh had addressed a letter to the petitioner vide Roc.No.E/248/2004, dated 18-01-2014, intimating the age of the said Sweet Orange Trees lying in the petitioner’s land as 4 Va years and 3 years respectively. Thereafter, the 4th respondent addressed a letter vide Roc.No.C/245/2005 dated

¶40

¶41

04.03.2015, intimating that the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the sweet orange trees aged about ‘4 1/2 years as on 2008 would be @ of Rs.2,22.421/-. But, in spite of that the 3-<. respondent paid only Rs.22,000/to the petitioner. Hence, challenging the said action, filed the present Writ Petition.

¶42

The 3rd respondent filed counter on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 also, wherein having admitted the facts as stated by the petitioner though stated that the husband of the petitioner was assigned the said land in the year, 2006 and the petitioner has been m possession only sinoe the date of assignment as such, the age of the trees would be two or three years prior to the date of assignments and though the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department assessed the age of the trees as '4 ■/,’ years initially, later on it was informed that the land was assigned in the year, 2006 to the petitioner and as the Assistant Director, Horticulture has assessed that the age of the sweet orange trees was ‘2’years and accordingly, the ex-gratia was calculated and the compensation was paid by the petitioner. In pursuance of the Orders of this court, in W.P.No. 14994/2010, the petitioner attended before the Srd respondent herein and received Rs. 1,76,435/towards ex-gratia for the land in survey No.43/1 in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents, including the value of the trees aged about ‘2’ years as per the report of the

¶43

¶44

Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kadapa, without any objection and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶45

Heard Sri.Challa Siva Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. On perusal of the entire material paper filed by the petitioner it shows that though the pattadhar passbook was granted to the petitioner based on her long possession in the year, 2006, the petitioner has been in possession of the land even prior to the grant of patta, which fact clearly establishes that the petitioner^musthave planted those sweet orange trees prior to the grant of patta and as such, the age of the trees assessed by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department as ‘4 V2 years’, could not be rejected and when the Assistant Director is the competent authority^toassessthe age of the trees who have assessed it as 4 ^2 years, though the petitioner stated that their age is ‘5’ years. But, however, the Assistant Director, Horticulture, basing upon the request made by the respondent that the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year, 2006, have rectified his report saying that the age of trees is ‘2’ years.

¶46

Admittedly, the age of the trees would remain as intact as per the report of the assistant Director, Horticulture Department and it was also observed by this Hon’ble in W.P.No. 14994/2010 as follows;

¶47

/ ■’

¶48

¶49

‘It is a matter of fact that the land was assigned to the petitioner in the year, 2006 and her claim is that she has been in possession of that land about two or three years prior to the date of assignment is not in dispute. Further, the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department/3'^ respondent therein assessed the age of the trees as 4 % years finaly on being informed the fact that the land was assigned in the year, 2006 he revised his earlier opinion and stated that the age of the trees was ‘2’ years.

¶50

In view of the above observations, this court feels it appropriate that as the respondent is the competent authority to assess the age of the trees and the respondents are liable to pay the compensation as per the report of the 4*^ respondent vide Roc.No.C/245/2005 dated 04.03.2005, wherein he has assessed the age of the trees as ‘4 V2’ years. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay the difference of compensation to the petitioner in accordance with the report of the 4^^ respondent vide Roc.No.C/245/2005 dated 04.03.2005 wherein, he assessed the age of the trees as ‘4 1/2’ years within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ^Petition

¶52

shall stand closed.

¶53

Sd/-G.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER "--tariat

To,

"--tariat

¶58

The District Collector, YSR Kadapa, Kadapa District 4 Th! Jan^malamadugu. YSR Kadapa District Th^ Prn 'ill Director Horticulture Department, Kadapa,^{YSRKadapaDistrict.} Manda!!'YlRTaSa SiT Vemula

¶59

1. One CC to SRI. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Advocate [OPUC] 8 Twn rr^ Tui/?c^ land ACQUISITION ,High Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT] 8. TwoCCsto the 15545/GP FOR AGRICULTURE,HIGH COURT of A P [OUTl y. I wo CD Copies •'

K _

✓

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/11/2022

ORDER

WP.No.8769 of 2015

g 2 0 AUG 202'» m
^ . Current Section

¶68

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

Danikela Uttamma v. the State of Ap., Revenue Dept and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danikela Uttamma v. the State of Ap., Revenue Dept and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dodda Seetamma, W/o. Dodda Ramalinga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venkatarajesh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Udaya Bhanu Associates Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Nandyala Subbamma, Ysr Dist Vs Prl Secy, Roads and Buildings, Hyd and 3 Ot

Dr. C.s. Kumar S/o. Chinnayya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kandula Sailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh