Writ Petition Is Not A Proper Remedy If There Are Seriously Disputed Questions Of Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The writ petition was filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in not paying the compensation for the acquisition of land.

The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was a private trust running a Dharmasatram. It was the owner of the subject land which was taken over by the Respondent Corporation and a bus station was established but no compensation was paid whatsoever.

The counsel for the respondent State Road Corporation argued that the land was voluntarily given by the trustees to the Corporation in 1988 and was not forcibly or highhandedly taken over. The bus stand was constructed way back in 1989. Since the land was said to have been donated free of cost, the question of payment of compensation should not arise. The Respondent contended that the petitioners never approached since 1989 till the present Writ Petition was filed in 2021.

The respondent submitted that the issues urged by the petitioners were matters of evidence. There were seriously disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in a writ petition.

The petitioner laid stress on Article 300A of the Constitution of India to argue that right of property is a basic human right and a person cannot be deprived of the property except due process of law.

The court observed that there were very seriously disputed questions of facts which required evidence to be adduced. For instance, was the land forcefully taken over? Can the petitioner claim compensation if the land was freely donated? What is the reason for petitioner's action for decades? The same cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition was dismissed as it was not the proper remedy.

Case Title :Sri Madarnanchi Rama Swamy Dharmasatram Private Trust Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh