T LAXMI NARASSAMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the Proceedings no. TWA4/340/98 dated 28/4/1999 issued by the 2nd respondent, directing the petitioner to repay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000. 00, petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE case in brief of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the lands bearing sy. Nos. 1/1, 3, 18/1, 8, 12/19 admeasuring acs. 7. 35 cents, Acs. 6. 68 cents, Acs. 2. 68 cents, Acs. 6. 30 cents and Acs. 18. 00 respectively, and that she gave her consent, when the respondents sought for her willingness to acquire Acs. 18. 00 belonging to her for public purpose, if Rs. 10,000. 00 per acre and the value of the irrigation well, standing mango and other fruit bearing trees is given to her, but the respondents agreed to pay @ Rs. 5,000. 00 per acre, for which she accepted. In respect of the fruit bearing trees and the irrigation well in that land, respondents stated that they would pay the value after obtaining a technical appraisal report. As per the appraisal report from the Horticulture department, amount payable towards the loss of fruit bearing trees came to Rs. 2,46,433. 00 and the value of the irrigation well was fixed at Rs. 25,466. 00. Though she accepted the valuation in the said report, she was paid only Rs. 1,60,000. 00 promising that the remaining Rs. 1,50,000. 00 would be paid later. As that amount was not paid and as she was insisting on payment of the amount due to her, respondents served her with a memo calling upon her to pay Rs. 1,60,000. 00 alleging that that amount was paid to her in excess. Though she sent a reply that some more amount is due to her, respondents without affording an opportunity of being heard to her, served the notice impugned calling upon her to repay Rs. 1,60,000. 00 allegedly paid in excess to her. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) THE case in brief of the respondents is that the petitioner, who is the owner of acs. 18 in S. No. 12/19, executed a consent letter on a stamp paper worth Rs. 5/-, accepting to sell the said land at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 per acre, and so Rs. 90,000. 00 was paid to her as compensation, and so paying compensation for the value of the fruit bearing trees and irrigation well does not arise more so because her land was purchased as per G. O. Ms. No. 242, sw (F) Department dated 4. 12. 1991. As the Assistant Director (Horticulture), Adilabad and Executive Engineer (Tribal Welfare, utnoor, inspected the land of the petitioner and evaluated the value of (98) Mango trees and (7) Guava trees at Rs. 2,46,463. 00 and the irrigation well at Rs. 26,466. 00, the Revenue divisional Officer, Utnoor, proposed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 towards the value of (98) Mango trees and (7) Guava trees and Rs. 10,000. 00 towards irrigation well, and so that amount was sanctioned and paid by the then Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor. After the petitioner made a request for payment of the balance amount, a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer was called for and then it came to light that rs. 1,60,000. 00 was paid to her in excess of the amount payable to her, inasmuch she sold the land only at Rs. 5,000. 00 per acre and so she was asked to repay the amount paid to her in excess of her entitlement.