Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Prl Secy, Revenue Dept., Hyd 3 Others vs Sarvepalli China Sankar Rao, Nellore ... on 27 August, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010350912016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 983 OF 2016
Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad
And three others. ...APPELLANTS
AND
Sarvepalli China Sankar Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellants: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Assignment
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar
The Court made the following Judgment::
(per Hon'ble RRR, J)
1. The respondent herein had been assigned Ac.5.00 of land in
Sy. No.6 of Manakur Village, Naidupet Mandal, S.P.S.R.
Nellore District. This land had been resumed for the purpose
of the creation of a special economic zone by M/s. A.P.I.I.C.
WA_983_2016
27.08.2024
limited. However, no compensation was given to the
respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said resumption, without
payment of compensation, the petitioner had approached the
Institution of Hon'ble Lokayukta. The Upa-Lokayukta took up
the complaint No.294/2008/B2 and passed an order dated
07.12.2011 directing the Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, to
consider the case of the respondent herein sympathetically
and assign an alternative land available as per Rules.
2. As the alternative land has not been given, the respondent
herein approached this Court by way of filing W.P. No.15758
of 2016. The revenue authorities took the stand before the
learned single Judge that the request of the respondent herein
for payment of compensation had been rejected by an order
dated 10.12.2008 on the ground that the land should not have
been assigned to the respondent herein as he was not eligible.
However, the communication dated 25.08.2009 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector was also
placed before the learned single Judge. In this
communication, the Revenue Divisional Officer made a
recommendation for the allotment of alternative land to the
respondent.
WA_983_2016
27.08.2024
3. The learned single Judge, after considering the material on
record, had held that the non-allotment of alternative land to
the petitioner, despite a recommendation dated 25.08.2009,
was arbitrary and that the action of the appellants in non-
allotment of any land required to be corrected.
Consequently, the learned single Judge allowed the writ
petition with exemplary costs by an order dated
03.08.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants
have filed the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for
Assignment appearing for the appellants and Sri P.V.
Venkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
5. The assignment of land in favour of the respondent is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the land assigned to
the respondent had not been resumed on the grounds that
there was any violation of the conditions of assignment or
that the respondent was not eligible for assignment of such
land. The ground of ineligibility was raised at the stage
when the respondent sought compensation.
WA_983_2016
27.08.2024
6. A larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in the case of Land Acquisition Officer -cum-
R.D.O.,Chevella Division,Hyderabad and others v. Meka
la Pandu and others1 had held that assignees of land
assigned under Board Standing Order No.15 are also
entitled to compensation on par with the pattadars.
7. In the circumstances, the resumption of the land by the
appellants herein would require the payment of
compensation to the respondent on par with other private
landowners. However, no compensation was paid to the
respondent.
8. The contention of the appellants that the respondent was
not entitled to assignment should have been raised in the
resumption proceedings, but the same cannot be raised at
this stage. The recommendation of the R.D.O. by the letter
dated 25.08.2009 also reflects the fact that the authorities
had accepted that the respondent should be compensated
for the loss of the land.
9. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of the learned single Judge.
AIR 2004 AP 250
WA_983_2016
27.08.2024
However, the said order is modified to the extent of payment
of costs. The appellants would not be required to pay any
costs.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off. No order as to
costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
BV
