Supreme Court in V. CHANDRASEKARAN vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER1 held as under: "The said laid, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. ..In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person-interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect."


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY            

WRIT PETITION No.34483 of 2012  

29-11-2012

Surada Tata Rao.... Petitioner

The Collector & District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District,
and others....  Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:  Ms. M. Uma Devi for Mr. G. Rama Gopal

Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?CITATIONS:
2012 (9) SCALE

ORDER:

        This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsement in
Rc.No.18/11/E2/SW, dated 01.10.2011, of respondent No.2.
       
I have heard Ms. M. Uma Devi, learned counsel representing          Mr. G. Rama
Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Land Acquisition.
       
The petitioner was the owner of Ac.0.47 cents of land in Sy.No.34/3 of
Chepalauppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.  The said  
land was acquired by the Government in the year 1985 for the purpose of
construction of houses to the weaker sections under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.  The petitioner admitted that he was paid compensation
for the said land, but claimed that he continued to be in possession of the said
land as the same was not utilized by the Government for the purpose for which it
was acquired. The petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2 with a request to
re-convey the said land as the same is not being put to use by the Government.
The said request was considered and the same was rejected by respondent No.2
vide the impugned endorsement, whereunder it was stated that the land once
acquired stands vested in the Government and that due to any reason if the land
is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the same can be
utilized for any other public purpose.
       
The law is well settled that once the land is acquired and compensation is paid
to its owner, it absolutely vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The
Supreme Court in V. CHANDRASEKARAN vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER1 held as under:            
        "The said laid, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure
holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it
was so acquired, or for any other purpose either.  The proceedings cannot be
withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or under
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been
taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances.

        ..In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the
land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is
not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the
purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose.  He becomes persona
non-grata once the land vests in the State.  He has a right to only receive
compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself
challenged.  The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to
the person-interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any
ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect."

        Ms. M. Uma Devi, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Rama Gopal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on a press report published in the
newspaper and submitted that an extent of Ac.28.56 cents of land, which was
acquired for the purpose of steel factory in the year 1978, is being returned to
the land owners.

        A perusal of the newspaper report shows that the Government has taken a
decision to return the land to its owners on the ground that the same was not
useful as it was low lying and getting submerged in rain water. It is not the
pleaded case of the petitioner that his land, which was acquired by the
respondents, is similarly situated as those which were agreed to be returned by
the Government as per the above-mentioned newspaper report.  At any rate, in
view of the settled legal position that the petitioner has become persona non-
grata with the acquisition of his land by the State, he has no legally
enforceable right for claiming return of the land.

        For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
       
        As a sequel, WPMP.No.43842 of 2012 filed for interim relief is disposed of
as infructuous.
_______________________  
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J    
29.11.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.