IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Non-payment of Compensation for Over Four Decades Shocks Judicial Conscience: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Compensation Recalculation for 42-Year

26 September 2024 8:21 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling in Voleti Venkata Narayana v. Special Tahsildar & Others, addressing the State's failure to compensate a landowner for over 42 years after acquiring his land for a public project. The court directed the government to recalculate the compensation based on current market value and ordered immediate payment of the original compensation with interest. The case highlights a gross delay in justice and violation of the landowner’s rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

The appellant, Voleti Venkata Narayana, owned 0.87 acres of land in Tadinada Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, which was acquired by the State for the construction of the Upputeru drain under a notification issued on March 10, 1977, pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Although possession of the land was taken in February 1982, Narayana never received the awarded compensation of ₹5,003. Despite seeking enhancement in line with compensation awarded to other landowners, the State ignored his requests for decades. He eventually filed a writ petition in 2009, which led to the current appeal following a lower court's inadequate judgment in 2023.

The key legal issue was the State’s prolonged failure to pay compensation and whether Narayana was entitled to recalculated compensation under the revised land acquisition laws. The appellant contended that the State's inaction constituted an egregious violation of his right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

The court observed that, despite taking possession of the land over four decades ago, the State had not only failed to compensate Narayana but also neglected his requests for enhanced compensation in line with other affected landowners. It emphasized that this neglect represented a severe breach of the State's obligations under the Land Acquisition Act and the Constitution.

The court further highlighted that the appellant, now 81 years old and bedridden, had suffered immense personal and financial hardship due to the State’s inaction. The court stated, "The trauma a marginal farmer suffers when his source of livelihood is taken away is not something which can be compensated by mere money."

The High Court ruled in favor of Narayana, ordering the State to re-determine the compensation based on the current market value of the land. The court set a deadline of four months for the payment of the revised compensation and further ordered immediate payment of the original ₹5,003 compensation with 9% interest from February 16, 1982, within three weeks. The court warned that failure to comply with these timelines would be treated as a violation of the court’s order.

The court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that it was imperative for the judiciary to step in when the State’s failure was "so shocking to the judicial conscience." The court condemned the prolonged denial of compensation as a grave injustice, particularly given the appellant’s age and health.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling is a strong rebuke of the State's failure to uphold its obligations under the land acquisition laws. It underscores the need for timely and fair compensation to landowners and highlights the importance of judicial intervention when fundamental rights are egregiously violated.

 

Date of Decision: September 25, 2024

Voleti Venkata Narayana v. The Special Tahsildar and Others​.

Similar News