LAW FINDER

Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate

PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Gangavalli Badarinadh v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) Law Finder Doc Id #
2082332
2022(6) ALT 554
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Before:- G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Writ Petition No. 2510 of 2013. D/d. 12.10.2022.
Gangavalli Badarinadh - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
For the Petitioner:- Ramesh Katikineni, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- GP For Revenue.
IMPORTANT
Acquisition of Land - Compensation - In absence of written consent to voluntarily give up
land, deprived parties are entitled to compensation.
Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 226 and 300A Andhra Pradesh Land Reform Act, 1974 -
Land - Acquisition of - Compensation - Payment of - Apex Court held that in absence of
written consent to voluntarily give up their land, deprived parties are entitled to
compensation in accordance with law - Held that Official Respondents miserably failed to
establish that Ac.5-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta
Mandal, Krishna District has been orally gifted in favour of Government/Pancyayat for
public purpose - Further held that Writ Petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation
for land taken by Official Respondents for construction of water treatment plant - Also held
that in view of admitted fact that subject land belongs to Grand-Father of Writ Petitioner
and that Official Respondents failed to establish any conveyance by Grand-Father of Writ
Petitioner in favour of Official Respondents, Official Respondents shall not interfere with
possession of Writ Petitioner of an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of
Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District except in accordance with
law - Writ Petition is allowed.
[Paras 10 to 12]
E/43409/05/23

Cases Referred :-
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769
Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) SCC Online SC 410
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491

1/6
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

ORDER
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Smt. Siva Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri
Ramesh Katikaneni, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y.Subba Rao, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in occupying and constructing Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project in extent of
Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5- 17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta
Mandal, Krishna District without following procedure and without paying compensation as per
law and further threatening to occupy remaining extent of Ac.4-17 cents, as illegal, aribitrary and
violative of Article 31 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay
compensation by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and to pass such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The facts of the case as submitted by the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner are that the Grand-Father
of the Writ Petitioner herein is the absolute owner of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli
Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District; that the Official Respondents have occupied an extent
of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5-17 cents and illegally constructed Water Tank under Rajiv Pilot Project
without following due procedure and without paying any compensation as per law; that, they are
further threatening to occupy the balance land to an extent of Ac.4-17 cents; that, this land was being
used for rearing cattle and sheep by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner, late Sri Dannapaneni
Butchayya Rao; that, this land is adjacent to the village; that, this land devolved upon the mother of
the Writ Petitioner, and thereafter upon the Writ Petitioner, being the only son; that, as such the Writ
Petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.5-17 cents; that, during the course of time, due to various
reasons, the cattle and sheep could not be maintained and that the family of the Writ Petitioner have
also shifted their place of residence to Vijayawada while being in possession and enjoyment of the
said vacant land; that, the Writ Petitioner had approached the Respondents on number of occasions to
find out the reason as to why they forcibly occupied the land and constructed Water Tank and
Filtration plant without following the due process of law, but in vain; that, as the Respondents are
proposing to occupy the balance of remaining land, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file a Suit
for Injunction bearing O.S.No.84 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru; that
in the said Suit (O.S.No.84 of 2012), the Official Respondents filed a Written Statement acknowledging
that the Grand- Father of the Writ Petitioner late Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao made an Oral Gift
to the State Panchayat for the welfare of the general public, and since then the land got vested with
the Government/Panchayat; that, request made by the Writ Petitioner to furnish any documentary
evidence evidencing oral conveyance proved futile as the plea of the Official Respondents is that it is
by Oral Gift that the Grand-Father has conveyanced this land to the Official Respondents for the
benefit of public; that the Official Respondents have also raised an alternate and inconsistent plea that
the subject land was surrendered as excess land under the A.P. Land Reform Act, 1974; and, that as
there was no response to the legal notice dated 10.12.2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is twofold:
(i) seeking a direction to pay compensation in accordance with law for the land (Ac.1-00 cents)
illegally occupied by the Official Respondents and constructed water treatment plant and water
overhead tank; and

2/6
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

(ii) not to interfere with the balance of land to an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of
Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District;
5. The Writ Petitioner has also placed on record Ex.P4 which is copy of the Adangal/Pahani wherein at
Column No. 12, the name of Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao is shown as Owner (name of pattadar)
and in Column No. 13 the Enjoyer is shown as Rajiv Technology Pilot Project. By Order dated
18.07.2022 the parties were directed to disclose the status of O.S.No.82 of 2012 and to place on record
the relevant proceedings. In pursuance of this Order, the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has filed, by
way of Memo dated 16.08.2022, the copy of the final Judgment and Decree dated 21.04.2015 in
O.S.No.82 of 2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, wherein and whereby the said
suit seeking Permanent Injunction by the Writ Petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for the Writ
Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.12 & 14 of the said Judgment
wherein the Trial Court has recorded the contentions of the Revenue Authorities/Defendants therein
to the following effect:
"12) The learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) has argued that, the forefather of the
plaintiffs who is the original owner and landlord donated the land cover in R.S.No.319/2 and
R.S.No.188/4 of Telladevarapalli Village and the same was accepted by the then Revenue
Authorities and said gift came in to force, that's why either plaintiffs or their predecessors in
interest did not shown the plaint schedule property in their declaration under A.P.Land Reforms
Act, 1974. In the year 1975 the predecessors of the plaintiffs filed their declaration under
A.P.Land Reforms Act, 1974, the Government constructed a M.P.U.P.School at about 15 years back
in an extent of Ac.0-15 cents of land in R.S.No.319/2 and the remaining land got constructed
houses to land less poor. So, the plaint schedule property is not in a possession of plaintiffs from
the year 1974, as if said land was surplus, surrendered by forefathers of the plaintiffs, so their
successors in interest nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of
this suit. Moreover, the evidence of the plaintiff not established the possession and enjoyment of
the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit; due to hiking of the rates and the
plaintiffs are residing at Vijayawada and filed this suit with a view to get back the property
which ever given by their forefathers to the Government under Land Reforms Act, hence, the
plaintiffs are not entitled for reliefs and prayed to dismiss the suit.
14) It is undisputed fact that, during the Arguments of both parties it was revealed that, the
forefathers of the plaintiffs are real owners of said property. In order to establish the contention
of the plaintiffs, Except the Ex.A1 there are no documents placed by the plaintiffs. Except they
relied on Ex.A1, stating that as if the schedule property is inherited from their forefathers and no
documents was placed by them in this suit proceedings. The contention of the Revenue
Authorities/Defendants is that the forefathers of the plaintiffs surrendered the said land by way
of gift deed to the Government under Land Reforms Act, 1974 and they are not in a possession
and enjoyment of the said property from long back and they are not in a possession of suit
schedule property. It is for the Government, utilized said property for public purpose and the
plaintiffs cannot get injunction orders as there is no base of said property saying that the
plaintiffs are in possession as on the date of filing of this suit and also it is not the case of the
plaintiffs that they handed over said property to their villager to look after the same as they
residing somewhere else".
6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the First Appeal bearing A.S.No.29 of 2015 filed by
the Plaintiff therein, that is the Writ Petitioner, was also dismissed on 17.08.2018 and that the Second
Appeal bearing S.A.No.217 of 2019 is pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

3/6
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

7. The Respondent No. 4 namely the Thasildhar, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District has filed
Counter- Affidavit dated 20.12.2017, wherein it has been stated that Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao
has orally donated the land to the Government for communal purpose long back i.e. sometime around
early 70s. It is also stated in the Counter-Affidavit that no registered document to that effect are
forthcoming in this office as this office was newly formed as a Mandal in 1985. It is denied in the
Counter that the Official Respondents have illegally occupied the land. It is also stated that though the
drinking water project was conceived in the year 2001, the project work had commenced only on
09.05.2011 with the funds of NABARD RIDF with an estimated cost of Rs.1,100 lakhs. Along with the
Counter-Affidavit, the Government also has filed the photocopy of the Adangal of the Pattadars,
wherein the name of the Pattadar shown as Sri Dannapaneni Butchayya Rao, who is none other than
the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner (in Column No. 12) and name of the Enjoyer shown as house
sites and Rajiv Technology (in Column No. 13).
8. Having heard both the learned counsel and having gone through the record, this Court has noticed
the following facts as admitted:
1) that, the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner was the absolute owner of the Ac.5-17 cents in
R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District;
2) that, there is no written conveyance as gift by the Grand-Father to the Official Respondents for
a public purpose;
3) that, no documents were produced by the Official Respondents to prove the oral conveyance of
gift for the benefit of the public; and
4) that, the Official Respondents have occupied Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5-17 cents and constructed
a Water Treatment Plant and Over Head Tank;
9. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed on record the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2022 SCC Online
SC 410) . At paragraph Nos.19 to 23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
19. The facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner,
actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it
was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary
action, which is also violative of the appellants' prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of
action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its
Article 226 jurisdiction. This court, in Manohar (supra) - a similar case where the name of the
aggrieved had been deleted from revenue records leading to his dispossession from the land
without payment of compensation - held:
"Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the case projected
before the court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any
State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the
learned counsel that, at this stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its
mistake and promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has taken an intractable
attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be a just and reasonable claim of the
respondent.
Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the
Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the

4/6
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows:
"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law."
This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's
property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit
one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution..."
20. Again, in Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra) while dealing with a similar fact situation, this court
held as follows:
"There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim.
Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong
done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other
categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down
that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has
been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different
scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to
the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the
benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for
acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode."
21. Having considered the pleadings filed, this court finds that the contentions raised by the
State, do not inspire confidence and deserve to be rejected. The State has merely averred to the
appellants' alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on
record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating
that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or
that they had ever paid any compensation. It is pertinent to note that this was the State's
position, and subsequent findings of the High Court in 2007 as well, in the other writ
proceedings.
22. This court is also not moved by the State's contention that since the property is not adjoining
to that of the appellants, it dis-entitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity.
Despite it not being adjoining (which is admitted in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
appellants), it is clear that the subject land was acquired for the same reason - construction of
the Narag Fagla Road, in 1972-1973, and much like the claimants before the reference court,
these appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following due process of law, thus
resulting in violation of Article 31 and warranting the High Court's intervention under Article 226
jurisdiction. In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants
were entitled to compensation in terms of law. The need for written consent in matters of land
acquisition proceedings, has been noted in fact, by the full court decision of the High Court in
Shankar Dass (supra) itself, which is relied upon in the impugned judgment.
23. This court, in Vidya Devi (supra) facing an almost identical set of facts and circumstances -
rejected the contention of 'oral' consent to be baseless and outlined the responsibility of the
State:
"12.9. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a
citizen of their property without the sanction of law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this
Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 :

5/6
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Nanda Kishore.....Advocate
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491 ] wherein it was held that the State must comply with the procedure for
acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State
governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the
Constitution.
12.10. This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [State of Haryana v. Mukesh
Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 769 ] held that the right to property is now
considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human
rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood,
health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held very clearly that in absence of written consent to voluntarily give
up their land, the deprived parties are entitled to compensation in accordance with law. This is in the
light of the fact that in the above rendered Judgment also the Official Respondents have not been able
to establish the alleged voluntary gift like in the present case where the Official Respondents have
held that the Grand-Father has given Oral Gift in favour of the Official Respondents.
11. In view of the above findings, this Court is constrained to hold that the Official Respondents have
miserably failed to prove that Ac.5-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta
Mandal, Krishna District has been orally gifted in favour of the Government/Pancyayat for public
purpose. Having so held, this Court further holds that the Writ Petitioner is entitled for payment of
compensation for the land taken by the Official Respondents for construction of water treatment plant
and over head tank etc., in an extent of Ac.1-00 cents out of Ac.5.17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of
Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal, Krishna District.
12. This Court also holds that in view of the admitted fact that the subject land belongs to the Grand-
Father of the Writ Petitioner and this Court having rendered a finding that the Official Respondents
failed to prove any conveyance by the Grand-Father of the Writ Petitioner in favour of the Official
Respondents, the said Official Respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the Writ
Petitioner of an extent of Ac.4-17 cents in R.S.No.188/4 of Thelladevarapalli Village, Vissannapeta
Mandal, Krishna District except in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. There shall be no order
as to costs.
14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
.

6/6