Dismissed

Pvp.Raju, v. The Land Acquisition Officer/

Telangana HC7 Mar 2013WP/6712/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of compensation for trees on land already acquired in 1986. The court held that compensation for the land was paid during the predecessor's lifetime, and any subsequent trees were raised unauthorizedly after acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as wholly misconceived and without merit; associated stay dismissed as infructuous.

Pvp.Raju, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer/ — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.6712 of 2013

¶3

Date : 7-3-2013

¶4

Between: P.V.P. Raju .. Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasipatnam and others .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao Counsel for respondents : --

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the trees allegedly situated in Sy.No.9 over Ac.3-63 cents of Gokivada village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the trees under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act").

¶9

I have heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶10

The petitioner’s father by name Pinnamaraju Sundara Narasaraju was the owner and possessor of the above mentioned land. The said land was utilized for construction of a percolation tank. The possession thereof was taken on 23-10-1986. Even though proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act were initiated, as compensation was not paid, the petitioner’s father filed W.P.No.6676/2006. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition by order dated 7-6-1996. As a consequence thereof, the respondents have paid compensation for the land.

¶11

The petitioner averred that his father died in the year 2008. That prior to the death of the father of the petitioner, the Revenue and the Irrigation Department officials measured the land on 24-10-2007 and when the petitioner’s father and the neighbourhood land owners allegedly objected to the said action, no further action was taken and that the respondents have again allegedly tried to take possession of the land on 27-2-2013, for which the petitioner raised objection by stating that compensation for cashew-nut thope and mango trees was not paid. As the respondents sought to proceed further, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶12

In my opinion, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the order in W.P.No.6676/2006 would show that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in respect of Ac.3-53 cents and possession was taken on 23-10-1986. In the said order, there is no reference to the existence of trees. On the petitioner’s own showing, compensation was paid for the land during the lifetime of his father. If trees were in existence as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, there could have been no reason whatsoever for the petitioner’s father to claim compensation for the trees also in the previous Writ Petition. Even if for any reason the he has omitted to make such a claim, at least at the time of payment of compensation for the land by the respondents, the

¶13

petitioner’s father would not have kept quiet without raising protest for non-payment of compensation for the alleged trees and seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession of the land is still with the petitioner. This plea is in the teeth of the finding given by this Court in the order dated 7-6-1996 in W.P.No.6676/1996, wherein this Court, in para-2, observed as under:

¶15

“The petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.3-53 cts., in Sy.No.9 and Ac.0-23 cts., in Sy.No.6 of Gokivada village o f Elamanchali Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which is the sole source of income for his livelihood, was acquired in 1986 for construction of a percolation tank for Gokivada. Possession of the land was taken on 23-10-1986 by the 5^th respondent. But the respondents have not bothered to pay the compensation till to-day. The lands were notified on 14-6-88, but further proceedings were not proceeded with.”

¶16

In the face of the above reproduced finding of this Court that possession of the land was taken on 23-10-1986, it is idle for the petitioner to state that physical possession of the land is still with him. Even if it is so, the petitioner’s possession is wholly unauthorized and the same cannot be recognized as lawful possession. If at all mango and cashew-nut gardens were raised in the subject land, obviously, the same would have been done unauthorisedly and the petitioner cannot claim compensation in respect

¶17

thereof as of right. From the fact that the petitioner’s father has not claimed any compensation in respect of the alleged cashew-nut and mango orchards, it is reasonable to presume that either they are not in existence or that they would have been raised after the initiation of the acquisition proceedings and receipt of compensation for the land. In either of the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation for the alleged orchards.

¶18

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.8417/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶21

Date : 7-3-2013

¶22

Pvp.Raju, v. The Land Acquisition Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pvp.Raju, v. The Land Acquisition Officer/

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

M/s Sri Sai Srinivasa Constructions, Vs The General Manager

P. Prabhakar, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Marella Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Donthi Reddy Yerra Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nimmala Satyavani Vs The Tobacco Board Rep by its Chairman

Pantulu Jhansi, Vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited