ANNADI LINGA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annadi Linga Reddy, writ petitioner herein, filed the present Writ Petition praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned action of respondents in not paying compensation under A.P. Irrigation Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, or under any other law, relating to S.No.785 to an extent of 20 guntas situated at Regadimaddikunta village, Sultanabad Mandal of Karimnagar District even after taking possession of the said land belonging to him as illegal, void and ab initio and further direct the respondents to pay compensation as per the Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the interest of justice and equity and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Sri Aswini Kumar, Counsel representing Sri Y. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 13 and 17 of the Act and also the Scheme and object of the Act and would contend that in view of the specific admission made relating to acquisition of 9 guntas of land in the aforesaid Survey Number by the respondents in the counter affidavit, on the ground of non-raising of objections or non-filing of objections the writ petitioner cannot be deprived of the compensation amount since it would be highly unjust and unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court where a similar question was raised and decided in W.P.No.6165/88 dated 31-12-1996. The learned Counsel ultimately would conclude that at any rate, having utilized the property of a citizen and having deprived a citizen of the property, the State is not justified in taking such a stand that the State need not pay compensation on the ground of non-filing of objections and on such a technical ground, the just relief prayed for by the writ petitioner cannot be negatived.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the counter affidavit and would submit that in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also in the light of the provisions of the Act referred to supra, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.