Shreenivas Muddu vs Chief Secretary To The Government Of Telangana And 4 Others

Heard Sri Bala Murali. Y, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.2 in encroaching into the major portion of the land of the petitioner situated in Sy.Nos.33/A, 38/A and 44/C admeasuring Ac.1.08 gts., Ac.1.27 gts., and Ac.0.30 gts., respectively of Mallepalli Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, for laying and widening the road from Manthani to Ramagundam, without following the procedure as required under law and under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act, 1894’) and also questioning the action of respondent No.2 in not complying with the directions issued by respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the subject land and a major portion of the said land was occupied by respondent No.2 by forming a road therein. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the said land from his father on his demise on 13.12.2017 and it is also the case of the petitioner that his name has also been updated in the Revenue records, Dharani Portal and he was also issued Digital Pattadar Pass Book vide Pass Book No.T20060100447 vide Khata No.60209 covering the subject land. It is the further case of the petitioner that on noticing the existence of the road in the patta land being claimed by the petitioner, petitioner approached the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Manthani, and at the instance of the said Mandal Legal Services Committee, respondent No.3 herein addressed a letter bearing Lr.No.G1/1539/2019, dated 24.02.2020, requested the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Peddapalli, to file requisition proposals for acquiring the patta land that was occupied for the purpose of formation of R&B road. But, respondent No.2 failed to take any further action for initiating appropriate acquisition proceedings pertaining to the subject land and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to take steps for acquiring the said lands and for payment of compensation.

Though respondent No.4 herein filed counter affidavit, dated 4.07.2022, this Court, having found the said counter affidavit inadequate especially in the context of the letter of respondent No.3, dated 24.02.2020, by an order, dated 05.12.2022, directed respondent No.3 to file additional counter affidavit explaining the status of the land situated in the said survey numbers and the said docket order reads as under:-

“From a perusal of the letter vide Lr.No.G1/1539/2019 dated 24.02.2020 filed along with the Writ Petition, it is noticed that the third respondent herein requested the Executive Engineer, R&B Department, Peddapalli, to look into the matter personally and to file the requisition for land situated in Survey Nos.33/A, 38/A and 44/C of Mallepalli Revenue Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District. Unless and until the subject lands, which are the subject matter referred to above, are the private lands, the question of the District Collector requesting the Executive Engineer to submit a requisition for acquiring the subject lands does not arise. If the subject lands are private patta lands, it is not open for the respondents to lay road or take over the said land for laying road without following due process of law.

The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent proceeds as though the subject lands are not the private lands and that the road is existing since several decades.

In the light of the above, the third respondent is directed to file additional counter explaining the status of the land situated in Survey Nos.33/A, 38/A and 44/C admeasuring Ac.1.08, 1.27 and 0.30 gts respectively of Mallepalli Village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District, with specific reference to the ownership of the said extent of land as shown in the revenue records and also with reference to the possession by the next date of hearing.

Post on 15.12.2022.”

In response thereto, respondent No.3 filed additional counter affidavit, dated 31.12.2022. In the said additional counter affidavit, it is stated that the total extent of land in Sy.Nos.33, 38 and 44 is Acs.11.17 gts., Acs.12.24 gts., and Acs.3.08 gts., respectively of Mallepally Village originally belongs to one Sri Pithambar Rao and the grandfather of the petitioner herein Sri Muddu Rajaiah S/o Pullaiah was shown as pattadars as per the Pahani for the years 1955-58 and thereafter, the name of the father of the petitioner namely Sri Muddu Narahari S/o Rajanna was shown as pattadar. The father of the petitioner is stated to have sold an extent of Acs.9.09 gts., in Sy.No.33 in favour of the third parties under various registered Sale Deeds and Sadabainama and an extent of Ac.0.34 gts., is occupied by PWD road as per the Pahanies for the years 1998-99, 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Insofar as the land situated in Sy.No.38 admeasuring Acs.12.24 gts., is concerned, it is stated that out of the total extent of Acs.12.24 gts., an extent of Ac.1.12 gts., was sub-divided as canal as per the ‘Supplementary Sethwar’ and the remaining extent of Acs.11.12 gts., was mutated in the name of the father of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner sold the entire extent in favour of the third parties except an extent of Ac.1.27 gts., which was occupied by the PWD road.

Insofar as the land situated in Sy.No.44 admeasuring Acs.3.08 gts., is concerned, it is stated that an extent of Ac.1.1440 gts., was taken over from the father of the petitioner being a surplus land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act, 1973’) and out of the said extent an extent of Ac.0.20 gts., was assigned to Smt. Budidi Mallamma and the remaining extent is covered by PWD road and the balance extent of land Ac.1.34 gts., out of Acs.3.08 gts., an Award was passed for an extent of Ac.0.18 gts., in favour of the father of the petitioner herein and the same was acquired for ‘excavation of R21 of link canal from RSB to LSB of D/83 from M.No.2/0 to 3/0’. Thereby, the father of the petitioner was left with an extent of Ac.1.1560 gts. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner under registered Sale Deeds, dated 17.10.1988, sold an extent of Ac.1.20 gts., in favour of the third parties and thus, the entire land standing as patta in the name of the father of the petitioner stood exhausted.

Thus, from the counter affidavit, it is evident that the land in Sy.Nos.33, 38 and 44 admeasuring Acs.11.17 gts., Acs.12.24 gts., and Acs.3.08 gts., respectively are the patta lands standing in the name of the father of the petitioner herein and out of the said extent of patta land an extent of Ac.0.34 gts., in Sy.No.33, an extent of Ac.1.27 gts., in Sy.No.38 and an extent of Ac.0.3440 gts., in Sy.No.44 was occupied by the PWD road, which is a ceiling surplus land.

In the additional counter affidavit, it is also stated that the father and grandfather of the petitioner herein voluntarily left the land situated in Sy.No.33 and 38 for the purpose of laying and widening of the road from Manthani to Ramagundam and by leaving the said land only the remaining land was sold by the father of the petitioner. To that effect, the registered Sale Deeds executed by the father of the petitioner and also reflecting the existence of road and as such the petitioner herein is not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of the land which was voluntarily left by his father for the purpose of road in question. It is further stated that during the land records updation programme the Revenue authorities without verifying the physical status of the land in question, the land in Sy.Nos.33, 38 and 44 was erroneously updated on the name of the petitioner on Dharani Portal and Pattadar Pass Book-cum-Title Deeds was issued in favour of the petitioner and they need to be rectified.

Though the Writ Petitioner filed a reply affidavit in response to the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, no serious claim is made in respect of the land situated in Sy.No.44 and the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the Writ Petition insofar as the land situated in Sy.No.44 is concerned. Hence, no further adjudication need be done in respect of the said extent of land.

Along with additional counter affidavit, respondent No.3 also filed a statement of Encumbrance Certificate showing the registered Sale Deeds executed by the father of the petitioner and from the said statement of Encumbrance Certificate, it is evident that the land sold by the father of the petitioner is adjacent to the existing road and the road is shown as one of the boundary in almost all the registered documents executed by the father of the petitioner. Thus, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any compensation and there is no necessity to acquire the said land that is occupied by the PWD road.

As already noted hereinabove, the subject land is admittedly a patta land through which a public road is formed and put to use. Admittedly the said land which is occupied by the PWD road is not acquired by the respondents though it is contended that the same was voluntarily left by the father and grandfather of the petitioner herein. But, no material is placed on record evidencing such consent or voluntary act on the part of father and grandfather of the petitioner herein. In the absence of any material in respect of all such contentions of the respondents such contention cannot be accepted. Once it is admitted that the subject land is patta land originally standing in the name of the father and the grandfather of the petitioner herein, any action on the part of the respondents in depriving the petitioner from possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land is totally arbitrary and illegal besides being unconstitutional.

As already noted hereinabove, respondent No.3 herein through his letter dated 24.02.2020, requested the Executive Engineer, Roads and Building Department, Peddapalli, to submit requisition proposals for the purpose of acquiring the land which is occupied by the PWD road. Respondent No.3, having addressed such a letter, in the year 2020, filed additional counter affidavit contending that there is no such necessity to acquire the said extent of land.

Right to property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and any attempt to deprive such property of the citizen is required to be done by following the due process of law. No Authority or State is entitled to deprive the citizen of his property unless a due process is followed. In the instant case, though it is contended that the land in question is given voluntarily by the father and grandfather of the petitioner herein, there is no material filed in respect of such contention. In the absence of any such material being brought on record and in the cause of the admitted fact that the subject land is standing in the name of the petitioner, this Court is left with no other option except to held that the action of the respondents in not initiating steps for payment of compensation in respect of the land by the PWD road, as illegal and arbitrary.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquiring the land situated in Sy.Nos.33 and 38 admeasuring Ac.0.34 gts., and Ac.1.27 gts., occupied by PWD road by initiating appropriate proceedings under the Act, 2013 and conclude such proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the right and title of the petitioner over the subject land and once the same is notified for acquisition, it is open for all the persons interested to make a claim for payment of compensation in respect of the subject land.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.