Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T. Jayamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
I
J
'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
o
TUESDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
..m
PRESENT
K:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM.
WRIT APPEAL NO: 564 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 24.04.2024 in W.P. No. 741 of 2023 on the file of the High Court. ^
Between:
T. Jayamma, W/o. Subrahmanyam, Aged 68 years, R/o. Racherla Village,
Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land
Acquisition Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District.
3. The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurupet, Tirupati
District.
4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati Disrict.
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 15^ CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the respondents to follow the procedure under Act 30 of
2013 and to pay compensation to the petitioner..''
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V. VINOD K REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
APHC010272222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 564/2024
Between:
T. Jayamma ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.VV1NOD K REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The appellant herein had approached this Court by way of
W.P.No;741 of 2023 contending that Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.108/3 of
Chinna Panduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District.,
which had been assigned to her by way of DKT Patta No.47/4/1404 in
the, year 1994, has been taken over for the establishment of an
industrial park without payment of any compensation to her.
2. The respondents had resisted the claim of the appellant for
payment of compensation by contending that the DKT patta produced
by her was not genuine and that the land was originally assigned to
some other person. However, it was finally clarified that the DKT patta
was infact issued to the petitioner vide Katha No.202 for an extent of
Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.108/3. The respondents-also contended that
the appellant was not entitled for compensation as per the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of
2013)., in as much as the land was assigned land and the appellant
was only entitled for payment of ex-gratia amount as per
G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue Assignment (Department-I) dated
14.09.2012.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by Judgment dated
24.04.2024, had held that the appellant was entitled to compensation
in accordance with the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the Erstwhile
High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in the case of Mekala Pandu^. However, the learned
Single Judge held that compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- was due to the
petitioner.
2004^2) ALT 546
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present
appeal contending that the direction of the learned Single Judge for
payment of total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- was not adequate.
5. Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that various other assignees, who have lost their lands, under
the same acquisition had approached the erstwhile High Court. He
would submit that a learned Single Judge, of Erstwhile High Court for
the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
W.P. No.22879 of 2018 after holding that the compensation amount of
Rs.6,50,000/- per acre was inadequate, had arrived at a compensation
amount of Rs.17,28,066/- per acre being payable to the assignees. He
would submit that in such a situation, payment of compensation, of
Rs.6,50,000/- per acre after taking into account earlier payments is
wholly inadequate and it has to be recalculated and adequate
compensation should be paid.
6. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing
for the respondents would submit that similar orders have been passed
in four writ petitions including W.P No.22879 of 2018. He would
submit that one such order passed in W.P No.26046 of 2018 on
13.12.2018, was challenged by way of W.A No.135 of 2019. In that
writ appeal a Division Bench of this Court while affirming all the
findings of learned Single Judge had held that the learned Single Judge
ought not to have calculated the compensation and should have ^
relegated V the matter back to the authorities for calculation of
compensation. The learned Government Pleader would contend that in
such circumstances it would only be appropriate that the matter be
relegated to the authorities in question and the compensation fixed by
the learned Single Judge should not be taken into account.
7.
Paragraph No.8 of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A No.l35 of 2019 dated 25.11.2019 reads as under:-
8. So far as question Nos.C and D are concerned,
it is to be noted that if learned single Judge found that
the principles of natural justice were not observed,
while setting aside the impugned order, looking to the
plea as raised before the Court regarding fraud, ought
to have directed the authority to decide the said issue
affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. But, in
stead of taking the said recourse, learned single Judge
went up to the extent of determination of
compensation. In that view of the matter, we set aside
the finding as recorded in question No.D. However, on
account of affirming the finding on question No.B, we
direct that the order passed by learned single Judge
setting aside the order of cancellation of patta in favour
of the writ petitioner is hereby maintained, with an
observation that the authorities competent shall pass
appropriate orders affording an opportunity of hearing
to the writ petitioner, within four weeks from the date
of communication of this order...."
<
8. In view of the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench passed
in the earlier order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this
V
appeal with the following directions:-
I. The determination of compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per
acre is set-aside.
II. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3-Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sulurpet, Tirupathi District., to
recalculate the market value of the land in question and to
calculate.the total compensation payable to the appellant
by applying the principles set-out in the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
III. This exercise is to be completed, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of this Order.
IV. After such recalculation, the compensation payable to the
appellant shall be paid within three months thereafter. Any
interim amount paid earlier shall be set-off against the total
amount payable to the appellant.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending
applications shall stand closed.
Sg'^p^^SsTRAR
//true copy//
/
SECTION OFFICER
To, State of Andhra
, The Prlncipa, Secretary, Land Acpuisiticn Depadment,
Pradesh, A,P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
^
2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District.-'
3. The Sub-Collector/Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sullurupet, Tirupatp-
District.
4. TheTahsildar , Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati Disrict
V
5. One CO to Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
7. Three CD Copies.
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/11/2024
JUDGMENT S' 19 NOV 2029 i
. Current Section
DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS
