Chitram Venkaiah and others vs Government of A.P. and others

Petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to allot either agricultural lands or house sites in the vicinity and proximity of the twin cities having the same value and utility as that of the lands which were taken away and acquired from them by the Govt. in the year 1964, if necessary, out of the lands available with them or by acquiring lands from others under any land acquisition proceedings.

Petitioners 1 to 6, the deceased husband of the 7th petitioner and the deceased father of the 8th petitioner are allottees of lands under the scheme known as ''The Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave Sarvodaya Bhoo Yagna Scheme''. The allotment was effected in the year 1956 by distribution of ''Pampini Patrams'' assigning the lands to these persons and the allottees were also put in physical possession of the allotted lands. Petitioners 1 and 2 were allotted Ac. 4-00 of land each and petitioners 3 to 6 and Pallati Chittari and Gaddam Balaiah were allotted Ac. 3-00 of land each. On such allotment, the beneficiaries made those lands cultivable by spending huge amounts. They have also sunk wells for converting these lands into cultivable lands.

Due to influx of population in and around Hyderabad, the Kanchanbagh locality, within which area the petitioners were assigned lands, became valuable for the purpose of house sites. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh prepared a scheme acquiring those lands under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of constructing Defence Metallurgical Research-Laboratory. Though the petitioners opposed such land acquisition proceedings acquiring the entire land situate in survey No. 41/1, the 1st respondent issued land acquisition proceedings by notification dated 30-1-1964 which were published on 3-2-1964 and the lands in question were taken possession on 28-2-1964. Pursuant to the issuance of land acquisition proceedings, compensation was also determined. The matter was referred to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') for enhancement of the compensation in O.P. No. 362 of 1965 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

As there were claims and counter claims on one side by the petitioners claiming compensation, and on the other side -- the 2nd respondent, contesting the same, the matter was referred to under Sec. 30 of the Act before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for determining the compensation which has to be paid to them in O.P. No. 234 of 1965. The Civil Court held that the 2nd respondent, as custodian of the lands, is entitled to receive compensation on behalf of the beneficiaries. It was further held that the 2nd respondent has to purchase equivalent lands from out of the compensation and distribute those lands to all the original allottees including the petitioners whose lands have been acquired by the Government. O.P. No. 234 of 1965 filed u/s 30 of the Act was disposed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by an order dated 12-9-1967.

During the pendency of the litigation as to determination of the compensation, the ''A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act'', Act XIII of 1965, came into force with effect from 10-5- 1965 repealing ''Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave Sarvodaya Bhoo Yagna, Hyderabad Land Revenue Special Rules, 1951''. Under the provisions of the Act of 1965, the 2nd respondent stepped into the shoes of Bhoodan Samithi, and the assets, liabilities and obligations of ''Bhoodan Samithi'' devolved on ''A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, 2nd respondent herein. In view of the changed circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 were made trustees, holding the monies of the petitioners in trust for a specific purpose of purchasing alternative lands and to allot them to these petitioners and others whose lands have been acquired by the Government for which compensation has been paid.

Despite the Civil Court passing an award and paying the compensation in the year 1967, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has not discharged his obligation by purchasing alternative lands and allot the same to these petitioners.

Questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent in denying the petitioners the equivalent lands they are entitled to in terms of the earlier assignment, the present writ petition is filed.

On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a detailed counter has been filed inter alia contending that the petitioners are only proposed allottees and they are not entitled for any lands pursuant to the passing of the award by the Civil Court. It is also stated that in the year 1977 when notices were issued to the petitioners, there was no response from the petitioners and therefore it is urged that the petitioners are to be blamed for the present situation. It is further submitted that in terms of the rules contemplated under Rule 2(d) of the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (for short ''the Rules) it is only the landless poor persons who are entitled for allotment of the lands under the Scheme and when notices were served on the petitioners, the petitioners have not chosen to send their replies and therefore it was construed that the petitioners are not landless poor and are not entitled for such allotment. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has withdrawn some amount which was received on account of compensation and has purchased lands in Nalgonda District and has already allotted these lands to some of the other beneficiaries whose lands were acquired by the Government. It is therefore, contended that the petitioners, having failed to respond to the notices issued in the year 1977, no allotment could be made in their favour in this regard.

Admittedly, these petitioners were assigned lands in the year 1955 under the then scheme known as ''Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave Sarvodaya Bhoo Yagna Scheme''. At that point of time, the respondents found that these petitioners including others were landless poor and therefore lands were allotted to them. It is not in dispute that the lands in question were given possession to these petitioners in the year 1955 itself and they have spent huge amounts for developing these lands including that of digging wells in the lands for agricultural purposes. In the year 1964, when the Government sought to acquire these lands for the purpose of locating research laboratory, the petitioners objected to the acquisition proceedings. However, their objections were rejected and the Government acquired the lands under the land acquisition proceedings and compensation was also paid. When the petitioners slake their claims seeking compensation, the matter was referred to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the Act for settling the dispute as to who is entitled to the compensation. The Civil Court in O.P. No. 234 of 1965 has decided that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation and it is only the 2nd respondent, as a custodian of the scheme, is entitled for such compensation and accordingly, the compensation was received by the 2nd respondent.

The matter referred to the Civil Court is only on the question as to who is to get the compensation. The Civil Court has decided that the 2nd respondent is entitled to receive the compensation as trustee of the Bhoodana Yagna Board and, therefore, paid the compensation to the 2nd respondent. That being the finding of the Civil Court, what is expected of the 2nd respondent is to purchase lands and distribute the same amongst the beneficiaries whose lands have been acquired by the Government for which compensation has been paid. The plea sought to be made by the respondent that in the year 1977 notices were issued to the petitioners and in the absence of any response from the petitioners, it was presumed that the petitioners were not landless poor and, therefore, they are not entitled for allotment of any land, in my view; is devoid of any merit. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners who were assigned lands in the year 1955, in a span of 20 years, with their hard work, purchased some other lands elsewhere and have ceased to be landless poor, the fact remains that as on the date of assignment in the year 1955, they were landless poor and, therefore, they were assigned the lands under the Bhoodan Scheme. Subsequent changes in their status cannot take away the right of retaining the benefits which were conferred on them in the year 1955. It is not open to the 2nd respondent to say that Rule 2(d) of the Rules is applicable even at the time of re-allotment.

May be, these rules could be made applicable when fresh cases come up for consideration under the scheme. As far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, they were originally allotted lands in the year 1955. The Rules have been made under the A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965. Therefore, the rules made after 1965 Act cannot be made applicable in the instant case, where benefits have been already extended prior to this Act. In other words, these rules cannot have retrospective effect. In the instant case, the lands were allotted to the petitioners in the year 1955 and after a passage of 20 years, they might have earned some money from the crop yield from out of the lands assigned to them. As I said earlier, subsequent change of status in the living condition of a person cannot take away the benefits which was conferred on him under a scheme much earlier.

Dealing with a similar provision contemplated under the Land Assignment Act, I have rendered a decision in W.P. No. 11876 of 1992 dated 28-6-1994 wherein I have held that the crucial date to be taken into consideration to decide whether persons are landless poor or not, is the date on which the original assignment was made. The facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the above said writ petition and therefore, I am of the view that the respondents cannot urge this proposition which in my view is contrary to the object of the Constitution.

Since the 2nd respondent has received compensation as a trustee on behalf of these petitioners and some other beneficiaries whose lands were acquired by the Government, it is obligatory on the part of the 2nd respondent to purchase the lands tentatively equivalent to the lands which were acquired by the Government or the extent of land which the compensation could fetch and allot these lands to the petitioners suitably in and around the area where earlier lands were assigned to them.

It is stated on behalf of the 2nd respondent that from out of the compensation received, the 2nd respondent has purchased a few acres of land in Nalgonda District and has allotted those lands to the other beneficiaries. It is contended that since the petitioners have not come forward staking their claims for seeking re-allotment, their cases were not considered, I am afraid, these submissions cannot be accepted, As I have said already, the obligation is on the 2nd respondent to purchase the lands and allot them to the petitioners. Since he has failed to discharge his obligation, he is bound to comply with the said obligation at least now. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to purchase lands from out of the compensation which was received by him on behalf of the petitioners as a trustee and allot these lands to the petitioners herein, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It should be borne in mind that the 2nd respondent cannot escape his responsibility by contending that no funds are available for purchasing the lands which are to be given to the petitioners. As a trustee on behalf of the petitioners, he has received the compensation and, therefore, it is his boun-den duty to purchase the lands to the extent of which compensation was received and allot such lands to these petitioners preferably within the area where the petitioners were allotted lands earlier. Alternatively if sufficient lands are available within the vicinity of Kanchanbagh, the 2nd respondent shall allot those lands to these petitioners as it was done in their favour on earlier occasion in the year 1955 without seeking to prove whether they are landless or not. It is not for him to decide this aspect now.

The iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent places before me a decision in Rup Diamonds and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, . Relying on this decision, it is contended that laches on the part of the petitioners in not agitating the matter for a long period invariably take away their rights. I am afraid, the facts and circumstances of the case referred to above have no application to the case on hand. It is not to say that the petitioners have been negligent in getting their grievances resolved. On the contrary when a duty is cast on the 2nd respondent who has admittedly received the compensation, it is not open to him to say that the petitioners should have approached the 2nd respondent and sought for allocation. If such an argument is accepted, I am afraid, the very purpose of these enactments would be defeated and therefore the arguments advanced are rejected.

A reading of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent goes to show that the 2nd respondent has invariably mentioned that the petitioners are proposed allottees. After verification by this Court, it is found that they are not proposed allottees but they are the persons to whom lands were assigned in the year 1955 and were also put in possession of the same. That being the situation, the 2nd respondent cannot say that the petitioners are only proposed allottees. The conduct of the 2nd respondent in trying to mislead this Court on this aspecE is a sufficient ground for this Court to construe that the 2nd respondent is trying to beat around the bushes. In my view, such conduct of the 2nd respondent cannot go unchecked and therefore, I consider it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.4,000/- on the 2nd respondent to be paid to the petitioners within 15 days from today.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs as indicated above.

Petition allowed.