LAWS(APH)-2009-7-57

V V RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On July 07, 2009
V V RAJENDRA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner is an admitted encroacher of Government land of an extent of Ac. 14. 89 cents in S. Nos. 472/2, 472/3, 306 and 473 of Vakapadu village of s. Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam district. In the encroached lands, he has dug fishponds and pursuing prawn culture. The petitioner stopped prawn culture on account of a potential Naval Alternative operating Base coming up at Ram-Billy in proximity to the encroached land. His grievance is that the Government has not paid ex-gratia for depriving him of continued occupation of encroached lands.

(2.) THE petitioner relies on a Policy of the state Government in G. O. Ms. No. 71 Energy (PR. IV) Department dt. 30-7-1998 wherein, for acquisition of lands for construction of the Simhadri Thermal Power Project, the government accepted to pay 70% of Rs. 2. 25 lakhs per acre to all D-Form Patta holders and to pay 50% of what is payable to the d-Form patta holders to other encroahcers, subject to Government's approval. The petitioner seeks a similar direction.

(3.) IN the considered view of this Court, there could not legitimate State action of compensating criminal conduct or the unlawful conduct of encroachment of public property. Unless the policy is for rehabilitation of the disadvantaged, the poor, landless or shelterless, awarding of benefits t all encroachers of public property would not be an executive act sanctified by constitutional discipline or legal morality. The executive agency of the State is required to protect the public realm and public property, which belong to all the citizens of the republic. If the State engenders a policy of granting compensation to encroachments and to all illegal occupants of public property, it would be doing so in subversion of the public realm. Such ill-conceived and prima facie unsustainable executive instructions cannot constitute a legitimate basis for Mandamus. In any view, G. O. Ms. No. 71 dt. 30-7-1988 is a past policy of the State in respect of lands acquired for the Simhadri Thermal power Project and do not constitute a general statement of executive policy.