Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Muralidhar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 4 March, 2021
Bench: A V Sai
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION Nos.43813 OF 2017, 12885 OF 2018,
36710 OF 2016 AND 46011 OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
Since these Writ Petitions are inter-related and basically
pertain to one subject land, this Court deems it appropriate to
hear and dispose of them by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri G.B.Sivaji, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing
Counsel for Nellore Municipal Corporation, apart from perusing
the material available on record.
3. The Municipal Council, Nellore, vide resolution dated
20.03.1994, resolved to acquire an extent of Ac.0-35.22 cents of
land, situated in C.A.S. No.214 of Venkatrampuram, Nellore
Town, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. The petitioners
herein acquired the said property from their father, one Sri
K.Radhakrishna Reddy, who passed away in the year 1991.
4. In pursuance of the above mentioned Council
Resolution dated 20.03.1994, the Municipal Commissioner
asked the petitioners to appear before him for negotiations,
obviously, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 42
2
of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. In response to
the said notice, the petitioners herein appeared before the
Municipal Commissioner and expressed their willingness for
giving the subject land subject to allotment of alternative land of
equivalent market value, belonging to Nellore Municipality in
lieu of compensation in terms of money. The Municipal Council,
Nellore, vide resolution dated 28.06.1996, agreed for allotment of
alternative land. But subsequently, the Special Officer, Nellore
Municipality, addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Land
Acquisition to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, which made the petitioners to submit a
representation dated 19.11.1995 against the said action.
5. S/Sri K.Syam Sundar Reddy and K.Muralidhar Reddy
filed W.P. No.22270 of 1996 against the said proposals. The
composite High Court in W.P.M.P. No.12751 of 1996 in W.P.
No.22270 of 1996, passed the following order on 17.10.1996:
"Mr. M.V.Ramana Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appeared for the petitioners fairly stated
before the Court that the petitioners have no
objection to give possession of the land, which is
required for the purpose of providing approach road
to the railway bridge and in respect of which the
Municipal Council, Nellore Municipality has also
passed appropriate resolution for providing
alternative municipal site by its resolution dated
3
28.06.1996 and the same has also been forwarded to
the Government for its approval.
In the light of the above, there shall be stay of all
further proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
except to the extent that the respondent-authorities
shall be entitled to take possession of the land
required for the purpose of approach road, for which
the petitioners have no objection as stated above."
6. Vide order dated 11.11.1996, W.P. No.22270 of 1996
came to be disposed of by the composite High Court and the
operative portion of the said order reads thus:
"It is now stated that the Municipal Engineer
and the Commissioner In-charge, Nellore Municipality
by his proceedings Rc.No.G-1/14151/86 dated
06.11.1996, addressed to the 4th respondent herein
i.e., the Secretary to Government, Municipal
Administration informed of the above interim orders
and further stated that the owners of the land
(petitioners herein) have handed over the land of an
extent about 35-22 cents in the said C.A.S. No.214
which was required for the formation of the approach
road for box type sub-way and possession of the site
had been taken over on 05.11.1996 and requested the
State Government to pass appropriate orders in the
matter for enabling the Municipality to proceed
further in the matter.
In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that
the 4th respondent i.e., the State Government is now
seized of the matter with regard to the resolution of
the Municipality for allotting alternative site of
equivalent market value. Keeping in view the fact that
the petitioners have handed over possession of the
land in question, this Writ Petition is being disposed
of at this stage with a direction to the State
Government to pass appropriate orders on the request
and resolution passed by the Municipal Council
which have been forwarded by the Municipality to the
Government. After such orders are passed, it would
be open to the land acquisition authorities to pass the
award. Accordingly, the State Government is granted
three months' time from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order for passing appropriate orders on the
representation made by Nellore Municipality.
With the direction as above, the Writ Petition is
accordingly disposed of and the interim orders
granted by this Court are accordingly modified, giving
liberty to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with
the land acquisition proceedings and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with the law."
7. In pursuance of the above said orders of the
composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the State Government
issued G.O.Rt. No.802 M.A. & U.D. (J2) Department dated
08.10.1997 and the last three paragraphs of the said
government order read as infra:
"The Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration in his letter 5th read above, has
requested the Government to accord permission to
the Municipal Council, Nellore, to exchange the
municipal site in L.P. No.66/82, Balajinagar
measuring an extent of Acres 1.06 cents for the
petitioners' site taken possession of by the
Municipality, Nellore, for formation of the approach
road to the Box-type Rly. Under bridge.
The Government hereby accord permission to
the Municipal Council, Nellore, to exchange
municipal site in layout No.66/82 amounting to a
value equal to that of the land taken possession of by
the Nellore Municipality for formation of approach
road to the Box-type Railway under Bridge.
The Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration and the Commissioner, Nellore
Municipality are requested to take necessary further
action in the matter."
8. Subsequently, W.P. No.35515 of 1997 came to be
filed by Sri Muralidhar Reddy for the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly one in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus by calling for the records, relating to
order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.802 M.A. &
U.D. (J2) Department dated 08.10.1997 and quash
the same as arbitrary, illegal and direct the 1st
respondent to grant permission to the Municipal
Council, Nellore to all the sites as approved by the
Municipal Council in its resolution No.1219 dated
28.06.1996 and the proceedings of the Municipal
Commissioner, Nellore in ROC No.G1/14151/86
dated 21.07.1996."
9. The composite High Court, vide order dated
25.10.2002, allowed W.P. No.35515 of 1997 and the operative
portion of the said order is as follows:
"Under the above circumstances, the impugned
order passed in G.O.Rt. No.802 dated 08.10.1997 is
set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to
reconsider and if the 1st respondent is of the opinion
that the resolution and the proposals sent by the
Municipal Council, Nellore, require modification, the
same may be sent back to the Municipal Council
with the suggestion or direction of the 1st
respondent which could be considered afresh, after
giving notice and opportunity to the owners of the
land, which was already taken possession from the
petitioner and the other owners of the land.
The respondent No.1 is further directed to
expedite the matter and take appropriate action and
pass orders, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the order. If ultimately, the
issue could not be settled by way of negotiations,
the Municipality is directed to take appropriate
proceedings for acquiring the land under the Land
Acquisition Act.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No
costs."
10. Assailing the above said order, Nellore Municipality
and the State Government filed W.A. Nos.1052 of 2004 and 1049
of 2004 and a Division Bench of the composite High Court, by
way of an order dated 18.02.2010, dismissed the said appeals
and directed the completion of the entire exercise within a period
of four months.
11. Thereafter, the Municipal Council, Nellore, vide
resolution No.88 dated 12.01.2011, allotted three sites, viz., (1)
Ac.0.40 cents in L.P. No.70/3, (2) Acs.1.06 cents in L.P.
No.66/91 and Ac.0.36 cents in L.P. No.55/95 (Totalling Acs.1-
76.5 cents). On the basis of the said resolution of the Municipal
Council, the State Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.
No.823 M.A. & U.D. (W1) Department dated 29.06.2011,
confirming the resolution No.88 dated 12.01.2011 of Nellore
Municipal Council and allotted alternative sites. Paragraph
Nos.8 and 9 of the said G.O.Rt. No.823 dated 29.06.2011 read
as under:
"Government, after careful examination of the
entire matter, have decided to confirm the revised
council resolution No.88 dated 12.01.2011, to allot
alternative site which is of equivalent value of the site
acquired from the owners for construction of
approach road to Box-type under bridge in Nellore
i.e., three pieces of land in L.P. No.70/91 to an extent
of Ac.0.040 cents, L.P. No.66/82 of Ac.1.06 cents and
L.P. No.55/95 of Ac.0.305 cents totaling Acs.1.765
cents.
Accordingly, the revised council resolution No.88
dated 12.01.2011, to allot alternative site which is of
equivalent value of the site acquired from the owners
for construction of approach road to Box-type under
bridge in Nellore i.e., 3 pieces of land in L.P.
No.70/91 to an extent of Ac.0.040 cents, L.P.
No.66/82 of Ac.1.06 cents and L.P. No.55/95 of
Ac.0.305 cents totaling Acs.1.765 cents, is hereby
confirmed. The apportionment among different
claimants shall be decided by the Nellore Municipal
Corporation, as per law in force, since the
Corporation is competent to do so.
The Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration, Hyderabad/ Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Nellore, shall take necessary
further action."
12. In pursuance of the said orders of the State
Government, registered deeds of exchange were entered into on
23.02.2013 between the Nellore Municipal Council on one hand
and K.Syam Sundar Reddy and K.Muralidhar Reddy on the
other hand. On 23.07.2014, an application was made to the
State Government, requesting to grant building permission.
13. Subsequently, assailing the inaction on the said
application, W.P. No.9982 of 2015 was filed by K.Syam Sundar
Reddy. The composite High Court, vide orders dated
18.08.2015, disposed of the said Writ Petition and the operative
portion of the said order reads as follows:
"Having regard to the same, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Writ
Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated
28.07.2014, and pass appropriate orders, as
warranted under law within a period of four (4) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and
communicate the decision to the petitioner. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions,
if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand
closed."
14. On 19.02.2016, Nellore Municipal Corporation, as per
the directions of the State Government, instituted three suits in
the Court of the District Judge, Nellore, praying for cancellation
of the registered exchange deeds dated 23.02.2013.
Subsequently, the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No.140
M.A. & U.D. (H1) Department dated 02.06.2016, stating that the
Government had no jurisdiction to convert the site reserved for
park or playground for some other purpose as per the Supreme
Court judgments and eventually, at paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of
the said order, the State Government said in the following
manner:
"5. Finally, in the reference 18th read above, the
Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation has
informed that the officers of Nellore Municipal
Corporation inspected the sites along with Town
Surveyor and identified a municipal site at
Tekkemitta, Nellore, with an extent of Ac.0.28 cents
in C.A.S. No.527 & 492/2 which is readily available
for allotment to the applicant. Further, the proposed
site at Tekkemitta is earmarked for residential use as
per Approved Master Plan, Nellore and at present in
the said site, an old municipal quarters is existing.
The present value of the proposed alternate site
situated in Tekkemitta is Rs.16,500/- per square
yard as per Sub-Registrar valuation certificate dated
28.05.2016 and the value of the applicant's site
which was acquired by the Corporation located at
Vijayamahal Gate is also Rs.16,500/- as per Sub-
Registrar valuation. Hence, the values of both the
sites are same and there is no difference.
6. Government, after careful examination,
hereby permit the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal
Corporation to allot the municipal site at Tekkemitta
belonging to Nellore Municipal Corporation with an
area of Ac.0.28 cents in C.A.S. No.527 & 432/2 to
the applicants i.e., Sri K.Syam Sundar Reddy, Sri
Gopinatha Reddy and Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy duly
repealing the earlier orders issued by the
Government in G.O.Rt. No.823 M.A. & U.D. (W1)
Department dated 29.06.2011. The Commissioner,
Nellore Municipal Corporation is further directed to
identify the balance land to an extent of Acs.7.22
cents for allotment immediately.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Nellore, shall take necessary further action
accordingly."
15. Subsequently, W.P. No.36710 of 2016 came to be
filed by Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, questioning G.O.Ms. No.140
M.A. & U.D. dated 02.06.2016 and Memo No.56249/H1/2015
dated 02.06.2016 and for a direction to grant layout permission
for the lands allotted through the order of the State Government,
vide G.O.Rt. No.823 M.A. & U.D. dated 20.06.2011. The
composite High Court on 28.10.2016 passed the following
interim order:
"This is a case where the petitioner's land has
been taken over without issuance of the Land
Acquisition Proceedings. BN is clearly admitted.
Even as per the G.O.Ms. No.140 dated
02.06.2016, the petitioner was offered to be given
land at Tekkemitta of Nellore Municipal Corporation,
which is being valued at Rs.16,500/-. In other
words, the rate at which the petitioner is required to
be compensated already stands determined at the
rate of Rs.16,500/-. It is the case of the petitioner
that the land which is now sought to be allotted to
the petitioner is of no value and it is not suitable for
him in any manner. Inasmuch as the petitioner had
agreed to take either the value or the suitable land as
the present land which is offered being not suitable,
no prejudice as such would prima facie case to the
respondent-authorities to make the payment in lieu
of the land at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per square yard
as equivalent value as per G.O.Ms. No.140. As it is a
s matter which has been pending since 1994, it
requires to be given a quietus consideration that this
is a fit case for referring for mediation. In that view
of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents shall get instructions on the aspect of
referring the matter to mediation, so as to make the
petitioner as well as the competent authorities from
the respondents to sit across and settle the same."
16. Subsequently, on 19.05.2017, a mediation was
conducted in the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Nellore,
and in the said meeting, the petitioners refused to accept the
land allotted through G.O.Ms. No.140 dated 02.06.2016 and
requested to allot any other lands or otherwise to pay
compensation as per the latest Land Acquisition Act.
17. On 23.06.2017, the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal
Corporation addressed a letter to the State Government, stating
that there are no other lands available and requested for
payment of compensation to the erstwhile lands of the
petitioners as per the then market value and prevailing rules in
force.
18. Then the State Government issued memo
No.56249/H1/2015 dated 03.07.2017 which reads as under:
"The attention of Director of Country and Town
Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur/Commissioner,
Nellore Municipal Corporation is invited in the
reference 24th cited, Government, after careful
examination hereby permit the Commissioner,
Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, to pay the
compensation to the petitioners Sri K.Muralidhar
Reddy and Sri K.Syam Sundar Reddy in W.P.
No.36710 of 2016 as per the then market value and
the prevailing rules in force to conclude the long
pending issue and to avoid legal complications in the
matter.
2. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal
Corporation shall take necessary action, under
intimation to Government as well as Hon'ble A.P.
High Court, immediately."
19. Subsequently, Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy instituted
W.P. No.43813 of 2017, assailing the above said memo dated
03.07.2017. On 22.12.2017, the composite High Court of
Andhra Pradesh passed the following interim order in the said
Writ Petition:
"Notice before admission.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
who submitted that the land of the petitioner was
taken in 1996 and exchange deed was also executed
and later a G.O. was issued for cancellation of the
same and challenging the same the petitioner filed a
writ petition and the same is pending. Now,
unilaterally the respondents cannot say that they will
pay the compensation as per the then market value.
Sri A.Panduranga Rao, learned standing counsel
for the 4th respondent vehemently opposed the writ
petition saying that the earlier writ petition is pending
and the petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation.
Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Municipal Administration for respondents 1 to 3.
It is to be seen that a reading of the facts
narrated in the writ petition goes to show that the
respondents are acting arbitrarily. Having executed a
registered exchange deed exchanging the property of
the petitioner, they realized the mistake and filed
suits and also issued G.O. for cancellation of the
same and now they cannot again come forward saying
that they will pay the then prevailing market value of
the land.
A.Panduranga Rao, learned standing counsel for
the 4th respondent and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader seek time for filing counters.
Post after six weeks in motion list.
Till then, there shall be interim suspension as
prayed for."
20. The said interim order was extended until further
orders on 07.02.2018.
21. Sri K.Syam Sundar Reddy filed W.P. No.46011 of
2018, questioning the action of Nellore Urban Development
Authority in calling for tenders for construction and
development of parks at Adhithyanagar and Vepadaruvu of
Nellore Municipal Corporation Area covered by exchange deed
bearing document No.2113 dated 23.02.2013. This Court on
08.02.2019, granted interim stay of all further proceedings
including construction and development pursuant to the new
tender notification in ID No.218508 and Notice
No.14/Eng/NUDA/18-19/EPC.
22. Sri K.Syam Sundar Reddy also filed W.P. No.3825 of
2019, questioning the action of the respondents in interfering
with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in
Sy.No.611-B covered by layout No.66/82 of Balajinagar, Nellore,
without issuing any notice and without following due process of
law. This Court, by way of an order dated 20.03.1999, while
dismissing W.P. No.3825 of 2019 with costs of Rs.10,000/-, at
penultimate paragraph, held that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date
of surrendering of the land.
23. It is also not in dispute that the said order was
carried in appeal vide W.A. No.427 of 2019. The Division Bench,
while taking into consideration the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the observations made by the
learned single Judge in the order dated 20.03.2019 in W.P.
No.3825 of 2019 would come in the way while deciding W.P.
No.36710 of 2016, W.P. No.43813 of 2017, W.P. No.12885 of
2018 and W.P. No.46011 of 2018, had set aside the order of the
learned single Judge to the extent of declaring that the
petitioners would be entitled for compensation as per the
prevailing market value as on the date of surrendering of lands.
A copy of the judgment in W.A. No.427 of 2019 is placed on
record.
24. It is contended by Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the petitioners
that the action of the respondent-Municipal authorities in not
finalizing the issue is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable
besides being violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the
Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned
senior counsel that in view of the conduct of the respondent-
authorities, the petitioners, who parted with their valuable
property, keeping in view the public interest, are being driven
from pillar to post. It is further submitted by the learned senior
counsel that in the second alternative site shown by the
Municipal authorities at Tekkemitta, Municipal quarters are
existing and the same also is not acceptable to the petitioners
herein.
On the contrary, it is vehemently contended by the learned
Government Pleader so also Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that
having agreed for the exchange of the lands, it is not open now
for the petitioners to go back from the same. It is further
submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that since the land
was taken possession of as long back as on 28.10.1996, the
compensation cannot be claimed under the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 30 of 2013
(Act 30 of 2013).
25. In the above background, now, the issue that
emerges for consideration of this Court in this batch of Writ
Petitions is "whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief
from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?"
26. Right to property is a very valuable right and is also a
constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, which, in equivocal terms, mandates that
no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his/her property
except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
27. In the instant case, the Municipal Council by way of a
resolution took a decision to acquire the property of the
petitioners obviously by way of negotiations as per Section 42 of
the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. It is absolutely
not in controversy that it is always open for the authorities to
acquire the property either by way of negotiations and with the
consent of the land owners or by way of compulsory acquisition
by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There is
absolutely no dispute with regard to the title and ownership of
the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-35.22
cents situated in Sy.No.1576/2018 in C.A.S. No.214 of
Venkatramapuram, Nellore. It is also not in controversy that
pursuant to the order of the composite High Court in W.P.M.P.
No.27510 of 1996 in W.P. No.22270 of 1996, the respondents
took possession of the land from the petitioners for formation of
approach road for box type sub-way on 05.11.1996. Though
initially, the State Government accorded permission in favour of
the Municipal Corporation to grant three bits of alternative lands
and even though registered exchange deeds were executed on
23.02.2013 by the Nellore Municipal Corporation, the Nellore
Municipal Corporation thereafter, instituted three suits before
the Court of District Judge, Nellore, seeking cancellation of the
said registered exchange deeds. Subsequently, on the ground
that the authorities had no jurisdiction to convert the site
reserved for parks and playgrounds for some other purpose, the
State Government, vide G.O.Ms. No.140 M.A. & U.D.
Department dated 02.06.2016, repealed the earlier orders issued
in G.O.Ms. No.823 M.A. & U.D. Department dated 20.06.2011,
wherein permission was accorded for handing over of the
alternative lands suggested initially and covered by L.P.
No.70/91 (Ac.0.40 cents), L.P. No.66/82 (Acs.1.06 cents) and
L.P. No.55/95 (Ac.0.35 cents). Obviously, in view of the
arbitrary actions on the part of the respondent-authorities, the
petitioners herein are compelled to come to this Court on a
number of occasions by way of filing various Writ Petitions at
different intervals. Though the respondents came forward by
offering the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents situated at
Tekkemitta, Nellore, the petitioners herein did not express their
consent for the same. The said land was offered to the
petitioners pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.140 dated 02.06.2016. The
State Government, vide memo No.56249/H1/ 2015 dated
03.07.2017, directed the Municipal Corporation to pay
compensation as per the then market value prevailing in the
year 2016. The above narration, in clear and manifest terms,
discloses that despite lapse of more than 2½ decades, still, the
petitioners are being driven out from the pillar to post. It is not
in dispute that the respondents are empowered to acquire the
private lands by way of negotiations also, but the same cannot
be in a unilateral manner and without the consent of the land
owners. In the instant case, though the authorities offered
alternative land pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.140 dated 02.06.2017,
the petitioners herein did not express their consent for the same,
as such, the petitioners herein cannot be compelled to agree to
the said request.
28. In fact, questioning G.O.Ms. No.140, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development (H1) Department, dated
02.06.2016, petitioners instituted W.P. No.36710 of 2016. It is
significant to note that when Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy
approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No.35515 of 1997,
questioning G.O.Rt. No.802, Municipal Administration & Urban
Development (J2) Department, dated 08.10.1997, the composite
High Court, vide order dated 25.10.2002, allowed the Writ
Petition and, while setting aside G.O.Rt. No.802 dated
08.10.1997, directed the State Government to reconsider the
issue leaving it open for the State Government to send back the
resolution and the proposals sent by the Municipal Council,
Nellore, for modification with any suggestions. The composite
High Court in the said order, also observed that if the issue
could not be settled by way of negotiations, the Municipality
should take appropriate proceedings for acquiring the land
under the Land Acquisition Act. The Municipality and the State
filed W.A. Nos.1052 of 2004 and 1049 of 2004 and a Division
Bench of the composite High Court, vide order dated
18.02.2010, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals, while
directing that the entire exercise be completed within a period of
four months from the said date. Despite the same, no finality
could be reached in the matter till date. It is also to be noted
that the petitioners herein are not in favour of accepting the
second offer shown by the respondents vide G.O.Ms. No.140
dated 02.06.2016. It is also clear from the pleadings available
on record that no other lands are also available within the limits
of the Municipal Corporation of Nellore District.
29. With regard to the contention of the learned Standing
Counsel as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act 30 of
2013, it is to be noted that Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013, came into force with effect from
01.01.2014. Having regard to the provisions of the said
legislation, in general and Section 24 of the Act in particular, the
contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the only
alternative left to the authorities is the payment of compensation
to the petitioners herein for the subject lands in accordance with
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to have a
quietus for the entire litigation, the said course of action is
highly reasonable to be adopted by the respondents herein.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are
disposed of, directing the respondents herein to press into
service provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act 30 of 2013 and to fix compensation payable to
the petitioners and pay the same. This exercise shall be
completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in these cases
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs of the
Writ Petitions.
__________________________
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
04.03.2021
siva
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION Nos.43813 OF 2017, 12885 OF 2018, 36710 OF 2016
AND 46011 OF 2018
Date: 04.03.2021
siva
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.43813 OF 2017,
12885 OF 2018, 36716 OF 2016 AND 46011 OF 2018
% 05.03.2021
# Between:
W.P. No.43813 of 2017
K.Muralidhar Reddy, S/o.late K.Radhakrishna Reddy,
57 years, Occ: Advocate, Flat No.504, Srinilayam
Apartments, Tejaswi Nagar, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048.
- - - Petitioner
And
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H1)
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Guntur District.
and others - - - Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.Vidya Sagar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.B.Sivaji, Government for
Municipal Administration
Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava,
Standing Counsel for Nellore
Municipal Corporation
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil
This Court made the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION Nos.43813 OF 2017,
12885 OF 2018, 36716 OF 2016 AND 46011 OF 2018
Between:
W.P. No.43813 of 2017
K.Muralidhar Reddy, S/o.late K.Radhakrishna Reddy,
57 years, Occ: Advocate, Flat No.504, Srinilayam
Apartments, Tejaswi Nagar, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048.
- - - Petitioner
And
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H1)
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Guntur District.
and others - - - Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.03.2021
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copy of order may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals.
3. Whether His Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the order?
___________________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
