Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Special Collector, Land ... vs Mamidi Papaih, on 14 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010545962015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 168/2015
Between:
The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Gnss, ...APPELLANT(S)
Kadapa. and Others
AND
Mamidi Papaih ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI
The Court made the following Judgment:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing
for the appellants and Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
2. The respondent herein had been assigned Ac.2.95 cents of
agricultural land in Sy.No.59/4 of Rekalakunta Village, Gopavaram
Mandal, Kadapa District. Subsequently, this land was resumed, by
RRR,J & HN,J
proceedings, dated 09.02.2004, in Rc.No.B/338/99, as the said land was
going to be submerged on account of the Somasila Project.
3. The respondent was paid ex-gratia by fixing a market value
of Rs.36,000/- per acre. The respondent, on the basis of such valuation,
has received Rs.1,38,528/- on 25.05.2006. After receiving this amount,
the respondent has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.8115 of
2006 on the ground that the market value of the land had been fixed at
Rs.54,000/- per acre, but the respondent had been paid the ex-gratia
amount by taking the market value of the land at Rs.36,000/- per acre and
the same was arbitrary and violative of his rights.
4. A learned Single Judge Court, by judgment dated
04.11.2013, after going through the record, had held that the revenue
authorities, more specifically the Joint Collector, after physical inspection
of the land, has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.54,000/- per acre
in his inspection note dated 05.08.2004, and subsequently that should
have been the market rate at which the ex-gratia amount should have
been calculated.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have moved
the present writ appeal.
6. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition is that the respondent having accepted the ex-gratia amount,
RRR,J & HN,J
without any demur, could not have approached this Court again seeking
fresh enhancement.
7. The Form-C, containing the details of payment of ex gratia,
produced before this Court, does not show any objection being raised by
the respondent while receiving the ex-gratia amount. However, the fact
remains that the respondent was entitled for payment of ex-gratia amount
by taking the market value of the land at Rs.54,000/- per acre. It may also
be noted that payment of ex-gratia is not under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act'), but is by virtue of the
judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division
and Ors., vs. Mekala Pandu and Ors.,1. In such circumstances, the fact
that no objection was raised at the beginning would not affect the fixation
and payment of ex gratia.
8. The overriding factor, which needs to be looked into by this
Court, is the requirement of ensuring adequate compensation being paid
to the landless poor people, whenever the lands assigned to them are
taken back by the Government. In the light of this overriding requirement,
we do not find any merit in this appeal.
2004 (2) ALD 451
RRR,J & HN,J
9. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
Js.
RRR,J & HN,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
14th October, 2024
Js.
