Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalahasthireddy/Kalahastri Aravinda Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WA/204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati Bench dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State challenging a lower court order. The lower court had directed the State to ascertain the market value of land voluntarily surrendered by the petitioner for Harijanawada construction without compensation and pay the same. The High Court held that the State must pay compensation under Article 300-A of the Co

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.204 of 2023

¶4

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary – Revenue, Secretariat, and others

¶5

... Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kalahasthi Reddy @ Kalahastri Aravinda Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 49 years, R/0.D.No.AH-211, 3^rd Street, Anna Nagar, 8^th Main Road, Chennai, Taminadu, represented by his GPA-holder Veerepalli Ramachandra Reddy

¶8

… Respondent JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

Dt:11.04.2023

¶10

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh and its Revenue officers have preferred this writ appeal challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.9708 of 2015 by the learned single Judge issuing the following directions:

¶12

“a) The respondent No.2 is directed to ascertain the market value of the property as on 01.01.2014 admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-34 cents in Sy.No.332/1/A of Alluru Gram Panchayat, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

b) After ascertaining the same, within a further period of one month, the amount should be paid to the writ petitioner.

¶14

2 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶15

c) If the writ petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of the market value, he is given the liberty to move the civil Court for the said purpose.

¶16

d) If such a case is filed by the petitioner, the same will be disposed by the civil Court concerned on the same lines on which an application for reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is disposed of.”

¶17

The writ petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.2.34 cents

¶18

in Sy.No.332/1/A of Alluru Gram Panchayat, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District. He voluntarily surrendered land for construction of a Harijanawada, which is already constructed. However, he has not been paid compensation despite his constant efforts.

¶19

Referring to the material papers demonstrating the writ petitioner’s effort for obtaining compensation, learned single Judge negated the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there is enormous delay in preferring the writ petition. Learned single Judge has referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyani (dead)

¶20

through LRs. and others V. Sulthan Bathery Municipality and

¶21

others – 2022 SCC Online SC 516 and issued the aforesaid directions.

¶22

Admittedly, after the writ petitioner surrendered the land, title of which is not disputed, Harijanawada is constructed, but he was neither paid compensation nor the land was formally acquired.

¶23

3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶24

True it is that the event or transaction of surrender of land happened in the year 1984 and the writ petitioner served his first letter seeking payment of compensation on 22.06.1992, but the fact remains that he has neither been paid compensation nor the land has been acquired in accordance with law. There being no instrument transferring title of the land in favour of the State Government nor the land having been vested in the Government due to absence of lawfully drawn acquisition proceedings, it is not a case where the writ petition can be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches. When delay and laches is more on the part of the State Government in denying compensation to the writ petitioner, the alleged delay on the part of the writ petitioner can never be treated such delay so as to deny, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

6. In Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. – (2020) 2 SCC 569 , the Hon’ble

¶26

Supreme Court held that right to property continues to be a human right in a welfare state and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. Same is

¶27

the legal position in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius

¶28

4 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶29

Shapur Chenai – (2005) 7 SCC 627, N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy – (2008) 15 SCC 517, Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. – (2011) 9 SCC 354 and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat – 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 .

¶30

In Vidya Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the above judgments, held thus in paragraph 13:

¶31

“13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant.”

¶32

8. In Kalyani (dead) through LRs. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

¶33

Court held thus in paragraphs 11, 12, 20 and 21:

¶34

“11. Article 300A though not a fundamental right but nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a

¶35

5 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶36

statutory right. It provides that no citizen would be deprived of his property save without authority of law. Depriving somebody of his property, where it is land, can be made by number of modes e.g. by acquisition, surrender or by transfer and other facets also. In the present case, it being utilized for the road to be owned by the Panchayat/Municipality, it could either have been voluntarily surrendered, transferred by way of title deeds or by way of acquisition as may be provided under the statute.”

¶37

“12. In the present case, admittedly, there is neither any acquisition proceedings nor any transfer of rights by the appellants by way of sale, gift or otherwise. What is being alleged is that it was a voluntarily surrender of rights for no consideration. This is the stand taken by Panchayat/Municipality. If the Panchayat/Municipality is taking this stand, the burden would be on the Panchayat/Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. A memorandum or an agreement or a written document ought to have been executed by the appellants stating their free will to surrender for no consideration in favour of the Panchayat/Municipality.”

¶38

“20. Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the present case, we do not find, under which authority of law, the land of the appellants was taken and they were deprived of the same. If the Panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence that appellants have surrendered their lands voluntarily, depriving the appellants of the property would be in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

¶39

6 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶40

“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of K.T. Plantation Private Limited v. State of Karnatak a¹ apart from others, dealt with an issue relating to payment of compensation where a person is deprived of his property after deletion of Article 31(2). It laid down that there are two requirements to be fulfilled while depriving a person of his property. Requirement of public purpose is a pre-condition and right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in Article 300-A. While answering the reference in paragraph 221(e) it provided as follows:

¶41

“221. We, therefore, answer the reference as follows:

¶42

xxxxxxxxx

¶43

(e) Public purpose is a precondition for deprivation of a person from his property under Article 300-A and the right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in that article and when a person is deprived of his property the State has to be justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object and purpose of the legislature and other related factors.”

¶44

In view of the settled legal position and there being an undisputed factual position that writ petitioner’s land has been used for construction of Harijanawada way back in the year 1984, but compensation has not been paid, learned single Judge is absolutely justified in issuing directions to pay compensation by valuing the property as on 01.01.2014. The date 01.01.2014 is significant and has nexus with the subject claim of the writ

¶45

7 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.204 of 2023

¶46

petitioner because it is in this year the writ petitioner issued legal notice

¶47

seeking compensation from the respondents-appellants.

¶48