Bovilla Subbaiah Subba Reddy Died vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4927 AP

      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

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

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

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