LAND ACQUISITION — Act 30 of 2013
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Applicability — Encroachers — Government land.
Persons in illegal occupation of Government poramboke land do not acquire any right, title or interest merely by long possession and are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(Paras 26, 28, 30)
Encroachment — Long possession — Effect.
Continuous, uninterrupted or long-standing possession of Government land for several decades does not legalise encroachment nor confer ownership or compensatory rights.
(Paras 21, 26)
Section 3(r) — “Land owner” — Interpretation.
Only persons having clear title, patta rights, assigned land rights, forest rights, or persons declared as owners by competent court or authority fall within the definition of “land owner” under Section 3(r) of the Act.
Encroachers without title documents do not fall within its ambit.
(Paras 23, 29)
Section 3(n) — “Holding of land” — Scope.
Occupation without lawful title or recognised interest does not amount to “holding of land” under Section 3(n) of the Act.
(Paras 6, 23, 29)
Payment of property tax — Electricity and water connections — Effect.
Assessment to property tax, payment thereof, or grant of electricity and municipal water connections does not confer legal title or transferable ownership rights over Government land.
(Paras 6, 10)
Government poramboke land — Canal land — Burial ground.
Occupation of land classified as canal land, burial ground or poramboke land remains illegal and objectionable, irrespective of duration of occupation.
(Paras 14, 22, 26)
Land acquisition — Obligation of State — Scope.
Authorities are not statutorily obligated to acquire Government land occupied by encroachers under Act 30 of 2013 for the purpose of paying compensation.
(Paras 20, 28, 30)
Eviction — Due process — Requirement.
Even encroachers are entitled to issuance of notice and adherence to due process of law prior to eviction.
(Paras 7, 27)
Public purpose — Railway Over Bridge (ROB).
Construction of Railway Over Bridge undertaken to ease traffic congestion constitutes public purpose.
(Para 11)
Humanitarian rehabilitation — Effect.
Allotment of alternate housing to encroachers on humanitarian grounds does not confer legal right to claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
(Paras 16, 27)
Contempt proceedings — Effect of dismissal of writ petitions.
When writ petitions themselves fail on merits, contempt cases alleging non-compliance do not survive and are liable to be dismissed.
(Para 31)
Result.
Writ petitions and contempt cases dismissed — No costs.
(Paras 31–32)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Nature of batch
Multiple writ petitions and contempt cases
Filed by residents of Gunadala area, Vijayawada
2. Relief sought
Petitioners sought:
Declaration that proceedings dated 04-07-2023 rejecting compensation were illegal
Direction to initiate acquisition proceedings under Act 30 of 2013
Payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act
3. Petitioners’ case
Occupation of land in Sy.No.284/4
Possession claimed for 100 years or more
Property inherited from ancestors
Area merged into Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in 1981
Property assessed to tax
Electricity and water connections provided
Eviction proposed for Railway Over Bridge (ROB)
Petitioners contended:
They are land holders under Sections 3(n) and 3(r)
Eviction only possible through land acquisition
Long possession creates entitlement to compensation
4. Respondents’ case
Authorities contended:
Land is Government poramboke
Classified as:
Canal land
Burial ground
Rivas canal
No patta or title documents produced
Some claims based on unregistered agreements of sale
Property tax and utility connections do not confer title
Encroachers not entitled to Act 30 of 2013 benefits
Alternate housing already provided under JNNURM scheme
5. Rehabilitation measures
118 affected structures
114 identified as encroachers
88 houses allotted
26 houses to tenants
Flats allotted through lottery system
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Scope of Act 30 of 2013
The Court analysed:
Section 3(r) — definition of land owner
Section 3(n) — holding of land
Section 27 — determination of compensation
The Act protects:
Lawful owners
Assigned landholders
Patta holders
Persons recognised by court or statute
It does not extend to:
Illegal occupants
Encroachers on Government land
2. Long possession
The Court categorically held:
An encroacher remains an encroacher irrespective of possession for decades.
Possession:
Not permissive
Not legalised
Creates no equity
3. Payment of taxes
The Court reaffirmed settled law:
Property tax ≠ title
Electricity ≠ ownership
Water connection ≠ vested right
4. Public purpose
Construction of ROB:
Undertaken in public interest
Necessitated due to traffic congestion
Does not mandate compensation to encroachers
5. Due process protection
While denying compensation, the Court protected:
Right to notice
Compliance with eviction procedure
6. Division Bench precedent applied
Reliance placed on:
G. Ramunaidu v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept.
(WP No.43730 of 2016 batch, decided 21-03-2025)
Holding:
Encroachers without patta or title cannot be treated as land owners under Act 30 of 2013.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The binding ratio of the judgment is:
Illegal encroachers of Government poramboke land, irrespective of the length of possession or payment of municipal taxes, do not fall within the definition of “land owner” or “holder of land” under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and therefore cannot claim acquisition or compensation under the said Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment