IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No. 334 of 2021
&
WRIT APPEAL No. 335 of 2021
(Proceedings through physical mode)
WRIT APPEAL No. 334 of 2021
Bovilla Subbaiah @ Subba Reddy (Died)
Rep.by his LR wife Bovilla Rajamma,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Siddavatam road, Badvel,
Y.S.R. Kadapa District and others. .. Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Irrigation and CAD Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh State and others. .. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Ch. C. Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1&4 : G.P. for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.2&3 : G.P. for Land Acquisition WRIT APPEAL No. 335 of 2021 Bovilla Gopallamma, W/o. Gopala Reddy, aged about 42 years, Occ: House wife, r/o. Bodisettipalli (vil), H/o. Muthukur, Atloor Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and others. .. Appellants Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Ch. C. Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1&4 : G.P. for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent Nos.2&3 : G.P. for Land Acquisition 2 COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL) Dt: 01.12.2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) These two writ appeals arise out of the common order passed in two writ petitions bearing W.P.Nos.11982 and 13268 of 2018, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, which were preferred against the respondents' action of not paying compensation to the appellants/writ petitioners for Indigovats and open wells situated in the subject lands, which were acquired for construction of Somasila irrigation project.
2. Concededly, the land acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an Award No.5/2008-09 dated 04.03.2009 and Award No.5/2015-16 dated 30.03.2016, with the consent of the parties as mentioned in Para No.5 of the impugned order. While the matter stood thus, the appellants/writ petitioners' claim to be agitating their grievances for compensation for the structures standing on the land by filing representations, however, they did not initiate any proceedings for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894"). The appellants/writ petitioners preferred the writ petitions in the year 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for Indigovats and open wells after following due procedure under the Act, 1894.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, we are of the view that the writ appeals must fail not only on the grounds dealt with by learned single Judge, but also for the reason that for acquisition of certain piece of land, there cannot be two separate land acquisition proceedings i.e., one for land and the other for structures standing thereon. The very definition of the expression "land" as referred in Section 3(a) of the Act, 1894 provides that the 3 said expression includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus, if the appellants/writ petitioners were aggrieved by non-inclusion of the Indigovats and open wells in the subject Award, which are things attached to the subject land, for seeking inclusion of the same in the Award, the appropriate remedy for them was to move before the District Collector under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for making reference to the District Court. But, no such application was ever made by the appellants/writ petitioners before the concerned Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, nor there is a prayer in the writ petitions for making such reference, if the petitioners had already made such prayer at an earlier point of time. Moreover, the Award was passed in the year 2009 and the writ petitions came to be filed in the year 2018. Thus, the writ petitions also suffer from unexplained delay and laches.
4. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, accordingly, both the writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J GM 4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT APPEAL No. 334 of 2021 & WRIT APPEAL No. 335 of 2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) Dt: 01.12.2021 GM