Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Lingala Narasimha Reddy on 8 January, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1158 of 2023
Between:
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
State Secretariat at Velagapudi,
Guntur District & four others.
...Appellants
Versus
Lingala Narasimha Reddy,
S/o.Gangi Reddy, aged about 58 years,
R/o.Brahmanapalli Village,
Puttaparti Mandal,
Anantapuramu District, A.P..
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Learned Government Pleader
for Land Acquisition
Counsel for respondent : Mr. K. Srinivas
HCJ & RRR, J
2 W.A.No.1158 of 2023
Dt.: 08.01.2024
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition
appearing for the appellants and Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent herein had been assigned Ac.0.12
cents of land in Sy.No.10-4 and Ac.0.38 cents of land in
Sy.No.10-14 of Yenumulapalle Village, Puttaparti Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District, by way of patta dated 12.11.1991.
Subsequently, this land was taken over by the Tahsildar,
Purraparti Mandal, under proceedings dated 19.04.2002 and it
was subsequently handed over for establishing Silparamam by
the A.P. Tourism Department.
3. The respondent had sought compensation for the said
lands. However, no such compensation has been paid to the
respondent due to which the respondent moved this Court by
way of W.P.No.19379 of 2018. A learned Single Judge of this
Court, after hearing both sides, had held that resumption of the
land assigned to the respondent, without payment of
compensation was illegal and directed the appellants, herein, to
HCJ & RRR, J
pay compensation in terms of the judgment in LAO -cum-
Revenue divisional Officer vs. Mekala Pandu and Ors.,1.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue authorities
and the State of Andhra Pradesh have moved the present writ
appeal.
5. It is the contention of Sri B. Sesibhushan Rao,
learned counsel representing the learned Additional Advocate
General, that the land of the respondent had been resumed on
the ground that the conditions of the grant had been violated and
as such the question of payment of compensation, in terms of
Mekala Pandu's case, would not arise.
6. A perusal of the resumption proceedings would show
that the District Collector, Anantapur, had inspected the lands in
Sy.No.10 of the Village on 23.11.2001 and had formed an
opinion that the land would be useful for sculptures like that of
Silparamam and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to resume
the lands. On that basis, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued show
cause notice and took over the lands of various assignees
including that of the respondent herein contending that the land
was resumed as per condition No.17 of D-Form patta. The said
proceedings clearly demonstrate that the land was not resumed
2004 (2) ALD 451
HCJ & RRR, J
on account of any violation of conditions of the grant. On the
contrary, the land was resumed on the basis of the instructions
given by the District Collector to resume the land for the purpose
of establishing Silparamam.
7. In those circumstances, it must be held that the
respondent is entitled to compensation, in terms of Mekala
Pandu's case, to the extent of the land resumed from him by the
Mandal Revenue Officer.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
JS
HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)
8th January, 2024
JS
