Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri A Sitarama Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No:W.P.No.11194 OF 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
RNT,J
1. 01.05.2023
Sri Balaji, learned counsel, representing Sri
G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner's land to an
extent of Ac. 0.60 cents or 2904 Sq. Yds of
Sy.No.348/1 of Madhurawada Village, Visakapatnam
District was taken by the respondents for formation
of 60 feet width road and in lieu thereof the
petitioner was allotted undeveloped Plot No.'B'
admeasuring 1957.59 Sq. Yds only in Madhurawada
Village in Sy.No.352/1P & 2P, Visakapatnam Rural
Mandal, Visakapatnam District, vide proceedings
issued by 4th respondent in Rc.No.695/10/1-1,
dated 13.01.2011. Later on, on 23.09.2013, a show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner for
cancellation of the allotted plot on the ground that
there was no such provision for allotment of
alternate plot, in lieu of the petitioner's land taken
for laying down the road.
2. Challenging the notice dated 23.09.2013, the
petitioner filed W.P.No.34571 of 2013, in which
initially the interim order was granted. Later on, the
said writ petition along with one W.P.No.34676 of
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
2013 was dismissed by judgment/order dated
05.06.2018, directing the respondents therein to
take appropriate action pursuant to the show cause
notice.
3. Thereafter the respondents issued another
notice dated 10.02.2023 for cancellation of the
allotment made to the petitioner, to which the
petitioner filed the reply.
4. By the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023,
the Metropolitan Commissioner of VMRDA,
Visakhapatnam has cancelled the allotment of plot.
5. The impugned order has been passed, inter
alia, on the ground that the Visakhapatnam Urban
Development Authority (in short, the VUDA) was
constituted with the powers and objectives and
such authority had to follow either of the provisions
of Section 18 or 18-A of Andhra Pradesh Urban
Areas (Development) Act, 1975, for acquisition of
the private land, but the Vice-Chairman, VUDA has
received the private land without authority.
6. Another ground on which the impugned
order has been passed is that in the earlier
W.P.No.34571 of 2013, in the judgment dated
05.06.2018 it was observed "thus there was no
power vested on the officials of the 3rd Respondent
including the then Vice-Chairman of the 4th
respondent to pass orders on 13.01.2011 and
18.01.2011 to allot alternative plots of equal
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
extents in developed layout in Sy.Nos.351/1P & 2P
and 352/1P & 2P in favour of Petitioners. So such
allotment of alternative land to the Petitioners in
lieu of the land taken from them for road formation
by 3rd Respondent in 2011 is illegal, not permitted
by the Act and an abuse of powers by them".
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the provisions of Section 18 or 18-A of the
Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act,
1975 were not followed. He submits that neither
the petitioner's land was acquired under Section 18,
r/w Land Acquisition Act nor compensation was
awarded nor under the provisions of Section 18-A it
was taken, but the petitioner's were deprived of
their land and it was utilized for formation of the
road, on the assurance that the petitioner would be
given the alternative plot.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in judgment dated 05.06.2018 this
Court observed that the only right which the
petitioner has, is to get compensation for the land
which was deprived by respondent No.3 therein,
but that aspect has not been considered in the
impugned order. He submits that thus, the
petitioner is deprived of his private land, alternate
plot allotment has also been cancelled, and any
compensation for the petitioner's private land is also
not paid.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
9. Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel
representing the respondent Nos.3 and 4, prays for
and is granted a week's time to file the counter
affidavit.
10. In the counter affidavit specific stand of the
respondents on payment of compensation to the
petitioner shall be disclosed.
11. Till the next date of listing, the operation of
the impugned order shall remain stayed.
12. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from
the allotted plot. The petitioner shall also not create
any third party interest nor change its nature and
shall maintain statu-quo till the next date of listing.
13. List on 08.05.2023.
________
RNT,J
Scs
