G. RAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the land of the petitioner situated in Survey Nos.184 and 186 of Velgipoor Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District, together with a well situated in Survey No.184 of the said Village was sought to be acquired by issuing a notification under Sec. 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act, 1894" for brevity) dtd. 19/8/2012 and 20/8/2012 respectively by invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 17(1) of the Act, 1894. Through the said notifications, the possession of the land was also taken over by the respondents for the purpose of construction of underground tunnel of Pranahitha Chevella Sujala Sravanthi Project Scheme. However, no compensation is paid to the petitioner and no award is passed till date. Aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to acquire the land that was taken over by the respondents by invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 17 of the Act, 1894 and to pay compensation for the same.

(2.) According to Mr. M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of a total extent of Acs.6.00 gts i.e. Acs.2.00 gts each situated in Survey Nos.184, 186(AA) and 186(AAA) of Velgipoor Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal and that there was a well existing in Survey No.184, which is the source of irrigation for the entire extent of Acs.6.00 gts of land. Out of the said extent of Acs.6.00, the land admeasuring Ac.0.32 gts in Survey No.184 and Ac.0.18 gts in Survey No.186 has been acquired by the respondents by taking over possession together with a well existing in Survey No.184 but no compensation is paid till date. He further contended that the respondents in the counter stated that they have intended to delete the subject land from the acquisition proposals on the ground that the surface of the land is available for cultivation and as such there is no necessity to pay compensation, but such a plea is not available to the respondents. He further contended that, once possession is taken over by the respondents, the question of withdrawal of proposal from acquisition does not arise in the light of Sec. 48 of the Act, 1894. He also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal,(2020) 8 SCC 129.

(3.) From a perusal of the counter affidavit, it is noticed that there is no dispute about taking over possession of the subject property by the respondents for construction of underground tunnel but after having constructed the underground tunnel, the respondents appear to have felt that the surface of the subject land is available to the petitioner to cultivate and as such, there is no necessity to acquire the subject land and intended to delete the same from the acquisition proposal. For that reason, the respondents stated to have not passed any award nor paid compensation to the petitioner. The relevant portion from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reads as under:-