GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. K.JAGANNADHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, dt.4.4.2013 by which His Lordship allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, respondent herein. The appellants - respondents were directed to consider the case of the respondent - writ petitioner for payment of compensation for his land that was acquired by the Government in the year 1978 for formation of 'Jammulamma Balancing Reservoir' on par with private landowners, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the respondent - writ petitioner is a freedom fighter having participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in the year 1947-48 against the then Nizam of Hyderabad State and he was also imprisoned in the movement. After independence, he was assigned land under Freedom Fighters quota to an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy No.65 situated at Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. After the assignment, the petitioner developed the land and made fit for cultivation by digging a well, after obtaining loan from bank. This land was acquired by the Government for formation of Jammulamma Balancing Reservoir for drinking water to Gadwal Town and surrounding villages. The petitioner's land was also sub-merged under Kothapalli Lift Irrigation. The private patta landowners whose lands were acquired in the said project were paid compensation, but the petitioner was not paid any compensation for the land acquired, but he was paid only an amount of Rs.7,000/- for the well which he dug for cultivation of his land.

(3.) The land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1978. However, the compensation amount was paid and received in 1983. Since then until 2010 the petitioner did not make any complaint nor ventilate grievance with regard to the aforesaid acquisition of land as regards the amount of compensation. Thereafter, through his Lawyer the petitioner for the first time demanded more compensation without any basis. Now, in the writ petition, for the first time it was claimed that because of possession of land for more than ten years, he has acquired status of patta holder and as such compensation should be paid on par with looser of patta holders. The learned trial Judge accepted this plea and found that the relief should be granted.