KAIRAM LAKSHMINARSAIAH Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANCHERIAL ADILABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition illustrates the apathy of executive apparatus in meeting the legitimate demands of the people who were deprived of their lands without paying compensation to them but enriching those who were unconcerned with the properties taken over by the respondents for execution of a road work.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of lands admeasuring Ac. 1. 23 guntas and ac. 0. 20 guntas in Survey Nos. 37 and 33 of kalamadugu Village, Jannaram Mandal, adilabad District respectively. On the ground that the said lands were utilized for formation of road, the petitioners approached the respondents for payment of compensation. As their request went unheeded, they filed writ Petition No. 18855 of 1999 in this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed in the said writ petition, it was admitted that on the representation made by petitioner No. 1, the mandal Revenue Officer, Jannaram was asked to get the lands demarcated and it was found by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, who surveyed and demarcated the lands, that the above mentioned lands belonging to the petitioners are covered by the PWD road from indhanpalli to Kalamadugu and that while sending the said report of the Assistant director along with the old and new SDRs, the Executive Engineer (Randb), was requested to submit his remarks. It was stated that the Executive Engineer in his letter, dated 21. 4. 1999 submitted that the road is passing through the lands to the extent of Ac. 0. 20 cents in Survey No. 33 and Ac. 1. 23 cents in Survey No. 37, for which, compensation amount has not been paid and he requested for taking necessary action for payment of compensation. It was also stated in the said counter-affidavit that the proposed road was not formed in accordance with the original SDR approved by the Collector, Adilabad in the year 1976 and that no objections were filed by anyone including the petitioners with regard to payment of compensation. It was further stated therein that the District Collector vide his reference, dated 28. 7. 1999 called for details of the case from the Revenue divisional Officer, Mancherial and also instructed to process the land acquisition case duly obtaining the requisition and funds from the Executive Engineer (Randb), mancherial and that the matter is under active persuasion. An objection was also raised in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were dispossessed 18 years back and that the writ petition filed after long lapse of 18 years was not maintainable. Having reproduced the above-mentioned contents of the counter-affidavit in his order, the learned Judge disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider representation, dated 30. 7. 1999 of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) PURPORTING to comply with the said direction, respondent No. 1 - the Revenue divisional Officer, Mancherial issued the impugned proceedings, dated 10. 4. 2000, wherein the claim of the petitioners for compensation was rejected on the ground that they failed to make a claim for compensation at an appropriate time and, therefore, such a claim made after a long lapse of time was liable for being rejected on the purported ground "delay defeats equity".