The State Of Ap vs G Venkatamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 376 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 Nos.54 & 56 of 2019
                                      and
                             W.P.No.3102 of 2012

                              (Through virtual mode)

W.A.No.54 of 2019

Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department (Land Acquisition),
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, and others.
                                                      .. Appellants
      Versus

G. Venkatamma W/o. Venkataiah,
Aged 71 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Sidhamagraharam Village,
Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District.
                                                       .. Respondent

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, GP, for Additional Advocate General

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. G.R. Sudhakar, for Mr. V. Vinod K. Reddy

W.A.No.56 of 2019

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, and others.

.. Appellants Versus

G. Venkatamma W/o. Venkataiah, Aged 71 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Sidhamagraharam Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Respondent

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, GP, for Additional Advocate General HCJ & MSM,J

W.P.No.3102 of 2012

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. G.R. Sudhakar, for Mr. V. Vinod K. Reddy & Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sharma

W.P.No.3102 of 2012

G. Venkatamma W/o. Venkataiah, Agriculture, R/o. Sidhamagraharam Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District.

.. Petitioner Versus

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Sudhakar, for Mr. V. Vinod K. Reddy & Mr. Ch. Siddhartha Sharma

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, GP, for Additional Advocate General

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt: 27.01.2022

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Both the appeals arise out of W.P.No.3102 of 2012. The said writ

petition filed by one G. Venkatamma was allowed by the learned single

Judge, vide order dated 29.08.2017, directing the authorities to pay

compensation to the writ petitioner equivalent to the full market value of the

land and other benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, as if she is the full owner of the land, within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Liberty was also given to the

authorities to recover the amounts paid to the writ petitioner's son and the

son of the brother-in-law of the writ petitioner. Seeking review of the said

order, the authorities have preferred Review I.A.No.2 of 2018 and the same

was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018. Challenging the order dated HCJ & MSM,J

W.P.No.3102 of 2012

29.08.2017 passed in the writ petition, W.A.No.54 of 2019 has been filed by

the authorities, while W.A.No.56 of 2019 has been filed by them against the

dismissal of the review petition.

2. In W.A.No.54 of 2019, this Court, vide order dated 23.12.2021, has

condoned the delay of 491 days in filing the said appeal subject to payment

of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the appellants to the

High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks. Today,

it is submitted by Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of the Additional Advocate General, that the costs

have been paid.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Mr. V. Vinod K. Reddy and Ch. Siddartha Sharma,

learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that the writ petitioner has

settled the dispute with her family members and, therefore, she does not

wish to avail the benefit under the order passed in the writ petition. He

submits that the order passed in the writ petition may be set aside and the

writ petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

4. In view of the above submissions, the order dated 29.08.2017 passed

in W.P.No.3102 of 2012 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed as

withdrawn. Consequently, the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Review

I.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.3102 of 2012 is also set aside.

5. Accordingly, both the writ appeals stand disposed of. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL