BURAGAM RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner requesting to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.02.2016, and in taking steps to pay compensation to the respondents 5 and 6 in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.9.05 cents in RS.no.34/1 and Ac.6.13 cents in RS.no.39/3, at Singanapalli Village of Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, pursuant to the proceedings in Ref.no.B1/63/2016, dated 09.02.2016, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned lands.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; and of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition (AP) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4; and of Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. I have perused the material record.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is this: 'He belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. He is a permanent resident of Singanapalli Village. He is the absolute owner of the afore-stated lands. He is cultivating the said lands, being in possession of the said lands. The said lands originally belonged to the ancestors of Late Boragam Subbaiah, who is his grandfather. Late Boragam Pothu Raju, the father of the petitioner is one of the two sons of the said Boragam Subbaiah. There is a dispute between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents 5 and 6 on the other. An LTR case is pending before the Special Deputy Collector. Respondents 1 to 4 acquired large extent of land for the purpose of construction of Indira Sagar Project known as Polavaram Project. For the said purpose, the lands of the petitioner were also acquired. The respondents 1 to 4 issued the proceedings in Ref.no.B1/63/2016, dated 09.02.2016, in connection with the said acquisition proceedings. A notification, dated 10.02.2016, was also published in Eenadu Daily Telugu News Paper. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 16.02.2016, requesting the respondents 1 to 4 not to pay compensation to the respondents 5 and 6 in respect of the above said land, as they are not the owners and as this petitioner is the owner of the said land. The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, the 2nd respondent herein, sent a letter, dated 25.02.2016, to the Special Deputy Collector, Right Main Canal, Polavaram Project, Kovvur, West Godavari District, the 3rd respondent herein, requesting to enquire into the matter. However, there is no response from the 3rd respondent. The respondents 5 and 6, who are non-tribals, are influential persons. They are trying to get compensation from the respondents 1 to 4 for the subject land of the petitioner. The land is in an agency area. Hence, the writ petition is filed.'