Dismissed

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Telangana HC7 Jul 2009WP/22037/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court dismissed the plea for a declaration that the petitioner was eligible for ex-gratia pay for encroached government land. The Court held that the State cannot compensate criminal conduct or unlawful encroachment and that a past policy regarding a specific project was not a valid basis for mandamus against general compensation.

What the court decided

AI extract

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22037 of 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

V.V. Rajendra Prasad S/o. Bhaskara Ramaiah R/o. P. Bonangi Village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Dy. Collector, Naval Alternative Operating Base (NAOB) Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Special Dy. Collector, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District.

¶10

4 The Tahsiladar S. Rayavarama Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner also eligible for ex-gratia for entire extent of Ac 14.89 in Sy.No. 472/2 , 472/3, 306 a& 473 of Vakapadu Village, of S. Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which were in petitioner's possession and enjoymentfor more than a decade as may be set from Pahani Particulars for 1410 fasli onwards in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order or orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner is an admitted encroacher of Government land of an extent of Ac. 14.89 cents in S.Nos. 472/2, 472/3, 306 & 473 of Vakapadu village of S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. In the encroached lands, he has dug fishponds and pursuing prawn culture. The petitioner stopped prawn culture on account of a potential Naval Alternative Operating Base coming up at Ram-Billy in proximity to the encroached land. His grievance is that the Government has not paid ex-gratia for depriving him of continued occupation of encroached lands.

¶17

The petitioner relies on a Policy of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 71 Energy (PR.IV) Department dt. 30.7.1998 wherein, for acquisition of lands for construction of the Simhadri Thermal Power Project, the Government accepted to pay 70% of Rs. 2.25 lakhs per acre to all D-Form Patta holders and to pay 50% of what is payable to the D-Form patta holders to other encroachers, subject to Government’s approval. The petitioner seeks a similar direction.

¶18

In the considered view of this Court, there could not legitimate State action of compensating criminal conduct or the unlawful conduct of encroachment of public property. Unless the policy is for rehabilitation of the disadvantaged, the poor, landless or shelterless, awarding of benefits to all encroachers of public property would not be an executive act santified by Constitutional discipline or legal

¶19

morality. The executive agency of the State is required to protect the public realm and public property, which belong to all the citizens of the Republic. If the State engenders a policy of granting compensation to encroachments and to all illegal occupants of public property, it would be doing so in subversion of the public realm. Such ill-conceived and prima facie unsustainable executive instructions cannot constitute a legitimate basis for Mandamus. In any view, G.O.Ms.No. 71 dt. 30.7.1988 is a past policy of the State in respect of lands acquired for the Simhadri Thermal Power Project and do not constitute a general statement of executive policy.

¶20

On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶21

GODA RAGHURAM,J 7.7.2009. Note:

¶22

LR Copy to be marked. bo KRB.

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 22037 of 2007.

¶25

Dated: 7.7.2009.

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V.V. Rajendsra Prasad v. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dokka Syamsunder Singh Vs The STate of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Ambakam Selvam Vs The District Collector

G. Ramakrishna S/o Late G. Narayanappa Vs TheCommissioner of Land Revenue

Suda Rama Bhadra Purushottam Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Sobhanadri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Sivalikam Bala Krishnaiah Vs The District Collector Nellore