KANCHARLA RAMABRAHMAN Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for a writ of Mandamus in the form a declaration to the effect that the action of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, the 1st respondent herein, in making allotment of Acs. 2.53 cents of land in survey No. 15/6 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, in favour of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the said land, is also prayed for. The petitioners submit that their parents owned Acs. 45.85 cents of land in various survey numbers of Kurmannapalem Village and that they inherited the land. It is stated that the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, published three notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), dated 06.07.1984, and one notification, dated 28.08.1984, proposing to acquire Acs. 27.26 cents of the said land, for a project named as "Sites and Services", undertaken by the 1st respondent. They filed W.P. No. 13720 and 13721 of 1984, challenging the said notifications. During the pendency of those proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, whereunder, the 1st respondent agreed a) to acquire Acs. 41.85 cents of land, including Acs. 27.26 cents notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, b) to approve layout in respect of Acs. 4.00 of land in favour of the petitioners and c) to pay compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The terms of the agreement was reduced into writing on 20.11.1986. In accordance with that, two more notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, in June, 1988, regarding the balance of the land. Awards were also passed covering an extent of Acs. 36.07 cents. However, no award was passed in respect of land of an extent of Acs. 2.12 cents in survey No. 12/1 and Acs. 2.53 cents in survey No. 15/6. The controversy in this writ petition is about the 2nd item (for short 'the land'). The petitioners contend that though the land was included in the notification, dated 06.07.1984, no award was passed within the time stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act, and thereby, the further proceedings lapsed.

(2.) The petitioners submit that respondents 2 and 3, the Authorities of the APSRTC, started claiming rights over the land, on the strength of an alleged allotment in their favour, by the 1st respondent. They contend that when the land did not vest in the 1st respondent, on account of failure to pass award, the question of allotting the same to others, does not arise. With these and other subsidiary contentions, the petitioners submit that they are entitled to remain in possession of the land and that respondents 2 and 3 do not have any right to interfere with the same.

(3.) In its counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent admitted the facts pertaining to the publication of notifications, the existence of agreement between it and the petitioners and absence of award in respect of the land. The justification pleaded for not passing the award in respect of the land is that the Special Tahasildar (Land Acquisition) attached to their Office, took the view that the original classification of the land was "Assessed Waste Dry" (AWD), as per the Settlement Fair Adangal (SFA), and thereby, it stands owned by the Government. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Special Tahasildar (LA), requested the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka, to alienate the land in favour of the 1st respondent, duly cancelling the assignment, if any. The 1st respondent stated that no notices or proceedings were issued to it, in this regard. Reference is also made to the fact that the land was included in the declaration submitted by the father of the petitioners, under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act (for short 'the Ceiling Act'), and the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal taking the view that the family does not hold any land, in excess of the ceiling limits. It has also stated that the land was allotted to the APSRTC in the year 1981.