Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ramisetti Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Ap on 27 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
W.P.No.39074 of 2022
Ramisetti Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Venkateswara
Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.7-2-50,
Gollapalem, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna
District and two others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented
by its Prl. Secretary, Land Acquisition
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
District and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri E.Venkata Rao
Counsel for respondents : GP for Land Acquisition,
Sri K.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
Standing Counsel and
Sri Dr.D.Venkata Ramana
Reddy
W.P.No.39075 of 2022
Ramisetti Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Venkateswara
Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.7-2-50,
Gollapalem, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna
District and two others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented
by its Prl. Secretary, Land Acquisition
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
District and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri E.Venkata Rao
Page 2 of 6
SRSJ
WP Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
Counsel for respondents : GP for Land Acquisition,
Sri K.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
Standing Counsel and
Sri Dr.D.Venkata Ramana
Reddy
W.P.No.39076 of 2022
Ramisetti Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Venkateswara
Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.7-2-50,
Gollapalem, Kothapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna
District and two others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented
by its Prl. Secretary, Land Acquisition
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
District and three others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri E.Venkata Rao
Counsel for respondents : GP for Land Acquisition,
Sri K.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
Standing Counsel and
Sri K.Lakshmana Sastry
:: COMMON ORDER :
:
The above writ petitions are filed to declare the action of
respondent No.3 in intending to release the compensation amount in
favour of respondent No.4 vide Award No.01/2019 dated
11.06.2019, despite pending the proceedings in O.P.Nos.94, 95 &
96 of 2019 on the file of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary.
SRSJ
WP Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
2. Heard Sri E.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners
in all writ petitions; Sri Md.Ameen, learned counsel representing Sri
K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.3; Sri Dr.D.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.39074 & 39075 of 2022,
and Sri M.V.Raja Ram, learned counsel representing Sri
K.Lakshmana Sastry, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 in W.P.No.39076 of 2022.
3. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are
interconnected, these writ petitions were disposed of by a common
order.
4. A perusal of the record, land admeasuring 1188.30 square
yards in R.S.No.88/1 in Gunadala was acquired for road widening
by respondent No.3 under the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Award No.01/2019 dated 11.06.2019 was passed by determining
compensation. In view of the disputes between petitioners and
respondent No.4 in each of the writ petitions, the Land Acquisition
Officer referred the matter to respondent No.2 under Section 64 of
the Act. Seems, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the
SRSJ
WP Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
compensation amount under Section 77(2) of the Act before the
authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pending
O.P.Nos.94, 95 & 96 of 2019 before respondent No.2, respondent
No.2 is trying to release the amount in favour of respondent No.4
without adjudicating the dispute. Hence, the above writ petitions are
filed.
6. A perusal of material available on record, there is no dispute
regarding the acquisition of land referred supra and deposit of
amount to respondent No.2. In fact, Appeal No.481 of 2013 is
pending on the file of this Court arising out of the suit for partition
filed by petitioner No.1.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit
that till the appeal referred supra is decided by this Court and
determine the entitlement, the amount deposited before the
authority will not be withdrawn by any of the respective authorities.
8. Since the amount is deposited before the authority, pursuant
to, the reference under Section 64 of the Act coupled with the fact
that an appeal is pending, the Writ Petitions are disposed of
directing respondent No.2 to release the amount based on the
SRSJ
WP Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
judgment and decree in A.S.No.481 of 2013 (O.S.No.2 of 2006).
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall
stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 27.03.2024
TVN
SRSJ
WP Nos.39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Disposed of
WRIT PETITION Nos. 39074, 39075 & 39076 of 2022
Date : 27.03.2024
TVN
