P MALLAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.38 guntas in survey No.441 /33 in Burgampad village in Khammam District. An extent of Acs.200.00 of land including the petitioner's land got submerged in Domalavagu tank constructed by the Government. Alleging that their lands were utilized without due process of law, some land owners filed W.P.No.3261 of 1987. While the same was pending before this Court, the first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) and also published the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that though the land of the petitioner was included in the notification, the respondents did not pass any order and compensation was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass award to pay the compensation under the Act.

(2.) The second respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that after receiving the requisition from Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department, the proposals were submitted to the Government for approval of draft notification to an extent of Ac.103.14 gts. The Government approved the same in G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 21-5-1990. In the said notification, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as occupier of the land in Survey No.441/33 situated at Burgampad village. After publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land was surveyed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. As per the survey, the patta land under the alignment is Ac.83.14 gts and the Government land is Ac.27.35 gts. The second respondent submitted draft declaration limiting acquisition to patta land admeasuring Ac.83.14 gts. But, the Government requested to send draft errata for notification under Section 4(1) of the Act approved earlier and accordingly, a revised draft notification was submitted for acquiring land admeasuring Ac.83.14 gts. The land of the petitioner was not mentioned, as it is an assigned land. The first respondent while cancelling the earlier notification G.O.Ms.No.555, dated 21 -5-1990 approved the revised draft notification for an extent of Ac.83.14 gts and the same was published in Gazette, dated 25-11-1991. Therefore, the petitioner's land was never proposed for acquisition by duly declaring the intention by way of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner is claiming compensation for Government land, which was assigned in 1969 and which submerged in the tank. As per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993, petitioner was paid a sum of Rs 15,698/- as compensation for resumption of assigned land and the petitioner is not entitled for any other compensation under the Act. The writ petition is also opposed on the ground of delay and laches.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the land is notified by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the same cannot be withdrawn except in accordance with the procedure under Section 48 of the Act. In the absence of any notification withdrawing acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, having notified the petitioner's land for acquisition, the respondents are bound to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that even when the assigned land is resumed for public purpose, the assignee is entitled for the compensation on par with the private land owners, whose lands are acquired as per the provisions of the Act. The counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilation Officer v. M.S. Seshagiri Rao, S. Anjuman Ahmediyya, Muslim Mission v. State2 and LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd. v. Mekala Pandu3.