Dismissed

Smt. J. Dakshayani v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

Telangana HC9 Dec 2009WP/9717/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings for a Special Economic Zone. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit as the statutory procedures were followed, objections were properly published, no objections were received, and the petitioner gave consent for the acquisition award.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

Smt. J. Dakshayani Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶2

W.P.Nos.9717 of 2007

¶3

Date : 9-12-2009

¶4

Between : Smt.J.Dakshyani .. Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶6

W.P.Nos.9717 of 2007

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

1. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Sri P.Roy Reddy and Dr.J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Counsel representing the respondents.

¶9

2. The Writ Petition had been filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner mentioned in to the Annexure to the notification No.88S/2006, dated 17-11-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land and to pass such other suitable orders.

¶10

3. It is the case of the petitioner she is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.7.05 cents of various survey numbers of Mallavaripalayam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. It is her further case that the State in exercise of its eminent domain power had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 17-11-2006 and a reading of the said notification it is clear that the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired along with the lands of other agriculturists. It is further stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that an enquiry was conducted but the

¶11

petitioner was not asked to submit any objections in writing and she was only asked to quote the rate of each acre and accordingly the petitioner quoted @ Rs.30 lakhs per acre. Further it is stated that the respondents had not followed the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act in its letter and spirit. The respondents were to call for the objections from the agriculturists whose lands are sought to be acquired but they had not done so and on this ground alone the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be interdicted and set aside by this Court.

¶12

4. It is also further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that without conducting the enquiry in terms of Section 5- A of the Act, the respondents had notified the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and hence the same is also contrary to law and therefore the proceedings initiated under the Act are liable to be set aside. Further it is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the subsequent notifications issued by the respondents are contrary to A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion into NonAgricultural Purposes) Act 2006. Since there are teak wood trees, red sanders and mango trees in the lands of the petitioner which are sought to be acquired there is embargo to acquire under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002.

¶13

5. Further it is also stated that for constitution of special economic zones under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, the procedure mentioned under Section 3 of the said Act has to be followed. The 4^th respondent is a Government company. The Government in exercise of its eminent domain power cannot deprive persons of their land and create special economic zones and give the said land to the Government company i.e., the 4^th respondent and the Government company who in turn sells the land for profit which is not

¶14

the purpose for which the provisions of the Act had been incorporated. There is a purpose behind the Act and the very purpose is defeated in the manner in which the respondents are acquiring the land to be sold eventually by the 4^th respondent for a profit and the same is nothing but trading done by the 4^th respondent under the guise of special economic zones for the benefit of the 5^th respondent.

¶15

6. It is further stated that so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned, there are mango, teak wood, red sanders and palm trees and by virtue of the acquisition of the said land where trees are existing the trees would be removed and the same is contrary to A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002. The petitioner is in possession of the property and in the event of dispossession from her valuable property, her rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India would be at jeopardy. Several Grounds also had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

¶16

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7, several of the averments had been denied. It is stated that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati had placed a requisition vide letter No.ZO/TPT/LA/2006, 7/18 dated 23-2-2006 for acquisition of lands to an extent of Ac.50-88 situated in S.Nos.292/1 etc., including the lands belonging to the petitioner situated in Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) and the draft declaration proposals under Section 4(1) of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Chittoor by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati vide letter No.F/665/2006 dated 13-3-2006. The Collector, Chittoor had approved the DN proposals vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 18-3-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in A.P. State Gazette Extraordinary issue No.77/2006 dated

¶17

18-3-2006. The contents of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were published in two daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu on 25-32006 and in Visalandhra on 26-3-2006. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 24-4-2006 and therefore it is not correct to state that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 17-11-2006 relating to the instant case of acquisition.

¶18

8. It is further stated that no objections had been received in response to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, Newspapers and in the locality within the stipulated time as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act i.e., within 30 days from the date of the notification and hence the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was not warranted. Therefore, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Chittoor vide Roc.F/665/2006 dated 7-11-2006 and the same was also approved by the Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The Draft Declaration was also published in the A.P. State Gazette No.77/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The contents of the Draft Declaration was published in The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 20-11-2006.

¶19

9. The requisitioning Department/APIIC Limited had filed a written consent in Form-V as required under the provisions of A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992 to the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent award through the Negotiation Committee under Section 11(2) of the Act and hence Form-I notices as required under the provisions of the A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992 had been issued to all the land owners/persons interested in the lands. In response to the said notice in Form-I all the land owners including the writ petitioner had come forward for passing consent Award and gave

¶20

consent in Form III (Agreement) and in Form-IV (Affidavit) to that effect. The petitioner had given consent on 15-2-2007 in the said Forms. 10. It is also further stated that during the negotiations under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Chittoor the land owners had agreed for increase of 45.7% and 46.71% on the land value of wet lands and dry lands respectively and as per the rate fixed for the trees. The details of the package are as follows:

¶21

Land value per acre for wet lands
Market value per acre as per P.V.	Rs.1,45,000-00
Solatium @ 30% of the M.V.	Rs. 43,500-00
Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum	Rs. 17,400-00
Total	Rs.2,05,900-00
% of enhancement agreed in the	45.7%
Negotiation Committee
Rate per acre as per negotiations	Rs.3,00,000-00

¶22

Land value per acre for dry lands
Market value per acre as per P.V.	Rs.1,20,000-00
Solatium @ 30% of the M.V.	Rs. 36,000-00
Additional Market Value @ 12% per	Rs. 14,400-00
annum
% of enhancement agreed in the	46.71%
Negotiation Committee
Rate per acre as per negotiations	Rs.2,50,000-00

¶23

It is further stated that the Award enquiry was conducted from 16-122006 to 22-12-2006 at M.P. Ele. School, Mallavaripalem village duly publishing notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act and service of notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the persons interested.

¶24

Lands Details :

¶25

Sy.No.	Sub-Division No.	Classification	Extent
295	4	Dry	0.85
295	5	Dry	0.4
295	6	Dry	0.4
295	9	Dry	0.41
295	11	Dry	0.78
295	12	Dry	0.18
295	15	Dry	0.06
295	16	Dry	0.05
295	17	Dry	0.06
295	18	Dry	0.07
296	11	Dry	0.43
296	12	Dry	0.31
296	13	Dry	0.56
296	14	Dry	0.22
296	15	Dry	0.2
296	16	Dry	0.02
296	17	Dry	0.01
296	18	Dry	0.06
296	19	Dry	0.09
296	20	Dry	0.07
296	21	Dry	0.13
296	22	Dry	0.01
296	23	Dry	0.01
296	24	Dry	0.01
296	25	Dry	0.1
296	26	Dry	0.14
296	27	Dry	0.1
296	28	Dry	0.12
296	29	Dry	0.09
296	30	Dry	0.56
296	31	Dry	0.55
		Total	7.05

¶26

Tree De	tails :
S.No.	Sub- Div	Name of the Tree	No. of Trees	Tree including statutory benefits	value all

¶27

295	4	Mango	31	149592.54
		Thati	10	3436.40
295	5	Mango	14	67557.92
295	6	Mango	14	67557.92
295	9	Mango	14	67557.92
295	11	Mango	28	135115.84
		Thati	21	7216.44
		Red Sandal	30	166827.07
		Teak	20	46683.80
295	12	Mango	6	28593.40
295	15	Mango	2	9651.13
295	16	Mango	2	9651.13
295	17	Mango	2	9651.13
295	18	Mango	3	14476.70
296	11	Mango	16	77209.05
296	12	Mango	11	53081.22
296	13	Mango	21	101336.88
296	14	Mango	8	38604.53
296	15	Mango	8	38604.53
296	16	Mango	2	9651.13
296	17	Mango	1	4825.57
296	18	Mango	2	9651.13
296	19	Mango	3	11476.70
296	20	Mango	3	14476.70
296	21	Mango	6	28593.40
296	22	Mango	1	4825.57
296	23	Mango	1	4825.57
296	24	Mango	1	4825.57
296	25	Mango	4	19302.26
296	26	Mango	6	28953.40
296	27	Mango	4	19302.26
296	28	Mango	5	24127.83
296	29	Mango	3	14476.70
296	30	Mango	20	96511.32
296	31	Mango	22	106162.45
		Total	345	14,97,303.11

¶28

It is further stated that the above lands are held by the Awardee Smt.J.Drakshayanamma w/o. Ramachandraiah, resident of Mallavaripalem village of Satyaveedu Mandal are she is the notified enjoyer for the above extent of Ac.7.06 of Dry land. She had attended

¶29

the Award enquiry on 16-12-2006 and stated that she is the owner of the above land. She had produced pattadar pass book No.446863. She had also stated that she is enjoying the said lands for the past 25 years. Further, the public notices on Award enquiry had been issued before the Award enquiry in the daily Newspapers published from Tirupathi, Nellore and Chennai on 10-12-2006 in Eenadu, The Hindu and Dinathandhi and on 15-12-2006 in Vaartha, The Hindu, Dinathandhi. In addition, public notices were also issued after the award enquiry on 30-12-2006 in Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai editions of Eenadu, Vaartha, The Hindu and Dinathandhi calling for objections. Despite all the notices aforesaid, no counter claims had come with regard to the lands mentioned above and hence it was construed that Smt.J.Drakshayanamma w/o.Ramachandraiah is the only interested person in these lands.

¶30

11. Further it is stated that the Panchayat Secretary, Mallavaripalem had confirmed the ownership of the above lands in favour of Smt.Drakshayanamma w/o. Ramachandraiah. No objections had been received during the award enquiry and hence the compensation for the aforesaid lands of Rs.17,62,500/- + Tree value of Rs.14,97,303-11, i.e., Rs.32,59,803-11 was ordered to be paid to Smt.J.Drakshayanamma w/o. Ramachandraiah vide Award No.77/2007 dated 18-3-2007 passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. The awardee/petitioner had received the said compensation of Rs.342,59,803-11 on 17-4-2007 by way of four cheques bearing Nos.838136 to 838139 dated 16-4-2007 of State Bank of India. The possession of the land belonging to the writ petitioner was also taken and handed over to APIIC on 18-4-2007.

¶31

12. Further it is stated in reply to paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that it is not correct to state the

¶32

petitioner was not asked to submit any objections. Objections had been called for consequent to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act during the month of March 2006 as detailed above. No objections had been received in response to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, Newspapers and in the locality within the stipulated time as envisagedu.s 5-A of the Act i.e., within 30 days from the date of the Notification and hence the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not warranted. Therefore, Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Chittoor vide reference Roc.F/665/2006dd 7-11-2006 and the same was also approved by the Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 1011-2006. The Draft Declaration was also published in the A.P. State Gazette No.77/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The contents of the Draft Declaration were published in two daily Newspapers viz., Andhra Prabha and Vaartha on 12-11-2006. The substance of the notification was published in the localityon 20-11-2006 and hence it is not contrary to law as the proceedings were initiated under the Act for acquisition of lands of the petitioner along with the other lands situated in Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal.

¶33

13. In reply to para-6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that it is not true and correct to state that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is contrary to A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act 2006 since the lands situated in Mallavaripalem village had been acquired under the provisions of the Act and the Award had been passed under Section 11(2) of the Act as the ryots including the petitioner had given consent for acquisition of land. It is further stated that proper application would be moved for changing the land use for the said land after completion

¶34

of the Land Acquisition proceedings. The conversion of the land use before acquiring the acquiring the same does not arise as the land continues to be an agricultural land till it vests with the Government. When the Government desires to utilise the same for non-agricultural purpose, necessary action will be taken for such conversion, if necessary. With regard to trees existing on the lands belonging to the petitioner, it is stated that there are 345 trees of Mango, Palmyrah, Teak and Red Sandal for which value was assessed by the Horticulture and Forest Department officials and the same were adop0ted for determination of compensation to the trees existing in terms of G.O.Ms.No.357 Revenue (L.A.) Department dated 22-3-2006. The total tree value including all statutory benefits works out to Rs.14,97,303-11 and the same was awarded to the petitioner apart from the land value towards compensation under the Act.

¶35

14. In reply to para-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the notifications had been made under the Act for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone). It is not true and correct to state that deprival of the persons consequent to the acquisition of land as ryots/land owners including the petitioner had come forward for acquisition of their lands situated in Mallavaripalem village. Since the ryoths had given consent, the award under Section 11(2) of the Act was passed as they paid just and reasonable compensation under package deal. Consequent to the requisition placed by the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati, action had been initiated under the Act. The purpose of the acquisition of lands was for establishment of Industrial Park for providing employment to the public. It is not correct to state that the lands are being acquired by the

¶36

4^th respondent for the benefit of the 5^th respondent on trading basis. 15. In reply to para-8 of the affidavit it is stated that it is a fact

¶37

that there are 345 trees including Mango, Palmyrah, Teak and Red Sandal existing on the lands belonging to the petitioner. The tree value was assessed by the Horticulture and Forest Department officials and they furnished the estimates and the same were adopted for determination of the compensation to the trees existing in terms of G.O.Ms.No.357 Revenue (L.A.) Department dated 22-3-2006. The total tree value including all the statutory benefits works out to Rs.14,97,303-11 and the same was awarded to the petitioner/awardee apart from the land value towards compensation under the Act. It is not correct to state that in the event of dispossession of the property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India would be at jeopardy since just and reasonable compensation was received by the petitioner/awardee i.e., Rs.32,59,803-11 as the award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act.

¶38

16. In reply to paras9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the lands including the lands belonging to the petitioner situated in Mallavaripalem village had been proposed for acquisition under the Act for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) for providing employment to the public and most of the ryoths/land owners gave their consent for acquisition of their lands including the writ petitioner and compensation was paid to the awardees under package deal. The writ petitioner had also given her consent for acquisition of her land and she received compensation amount of Rs.32,59,803-11 as the award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. After receiving he compensation it is not correct to state by the writ petitioner that there is embargo on conversion of agricultural land and suggesting Government to acquire lands belonging to the State in order to save exchequer. Further it is stated that the petitioner is not a small/marginal farmer as she has got land to

¶39

an extent of Ac.7.05 dry besides her husband Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah having Ac.9.44 dry land covering in the instant acquisition. The petitioner’s land was embodied with mango and other trees as submitted above for which compensation was also received by the petitioner. With regard to conducting of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act it is stated that consequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, Newspapers and in the locality, no objections had been received from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner along with the other land owners of Mallavaripalem village had given consent for passing the consent award and gave consent in Form III (Agreement) and in Form IV (Affidavit) to that effect. The petitioner had given consent on 15-22007 in the said Forms. The Award was pronounced on 18-3-2007 under Section 11(2) of the Act acquiring the lands to an extent of Ac.50-88 situated in Mallavaripalem village including the lands belonging to the petitioner vide Award No.77/2007. The petitioner received compensation amount of Rs.32,59,803-11 on 17-4-2007 by way of Banker’s cheques of State Bank of India, Tirupati.

¶40

17. In reply to para-11 of the affidavit it is stated that the lands situated in Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal had been notified under the Act for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) and it is not correct to state that the 4^th respondent in turn is selling the land to private industrialists. Further it is not correct to state that the 4^th respondent is issuing the cheques without conducting the enquiry. Since the lands are notified under the Act compensation amount is being paid to the awardees duly following the rules and regulations as stipulated under the said Act. Further it is stated that after following the due procedure only as envisaged under the Act, the Award was pronounced on 18-3-2007 and the

¶41

compensation amount was disbursed to the awardees including the petitioner by way of Banker cheques in Mallavaripalem village itself. The petitioner received the compensation amount of Rs.32,59,803-11 on 17-4-2007 by way of Banker’s cheques. It is not correct to state that the respondents had threatened the petitioner to receive the cheques as the cheques were disbursed in Mallavaripalem village itself. In fact, the petitioner had received the award amount along with the other land owners. It is not correct to state the petitioner had received the cheques under protest. Further it is stated that with regard to the remaining land of Ac.3-38 situated in Mallavaripalem village belonging to the petitioner and her husband, action is being taken in separate notification (No.88-S) and Award will be passed in due course.

¶42

18. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent also almost similar averments had been made.

¶43

19. The 5^th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2096/2009 and the averments made in the counter affidavit are in similar lines.

¶44

20. The decisions in Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others^[1] and R.Veera Raghava Prasad and others Vs. District Collector, Krishna District [2] had been relied upon.

¶45

21. In the light of the clear stand taken in the respective counter affidavits and also in the light of the decisions referred to above, especially the view expressed by the learned Judge of this Court referred (2) supra, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.

¶46

_____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana

¶47

Date : -12-2009

¶48

¶49

[1] (2008) 9 S.C.C. 552 [2] 2008(2) A.L.T. 136

Smt. J. Dakshayani v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. J. Dakshayani v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Edavelli Sailaja, Vs The Government of a.P., Rep by its Principal Special -

Nekkanti Nageswara Rao, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Avatar Mehar Baba Premalaya Kendram Trust Vs The District Collector

Madduri Santha Kumari Vs The District Collector

M.Anjaiah Vs B.D.L. Employees Mutually Aided Co.op. Housing

Puti Hanumanth Rao Vs The District Collector