Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Collector Another, vs Veeradasari Laxmamma, 13 Other on 14 October, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010659062016
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: 877/2016
Between:
Collector & Another, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Veeradasari Laxmamma 13 Other and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY
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 P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. The respondents herein are residents of Gundavolu Village,
whose houses and other structures, existing in the said village, got
submerged, on account of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga
Project. Notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
RRR,J & HN,J
Acquisition Act, 1894 Act (for short 'the Act') for acquiring the structures
existing in Gundavolu Village. The notification, issued under Section 4(1),
published in the Newspapers on 06.05.2007 and in the locality on
09.05.2007, had set out the details of the structures that were sought to
be acquired. The declaration under Section 6 also gave out these details.
As per the said notification and declaration, about 640 structures were
sought to be acquired. Thereafter, award proceedings had been initiated
and the award was passed on 18.05.2009. In this award, it was stated
that the structures were situated on the government land and only ex-
gratia amount can be awarded. On this basis, the Land Acquisition
Officer, relying upon G.O.Ms.No.192, dated 02.12.1998, had granted ex-
gratia payable for the structures. However, solatium, additional market
value, interest, prescribed under the Act, were not granted.
3. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents had
approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1457 of 2010 contending that
they were entitled for payment of appropriate compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Act for all these structures, which
had been acquired.
4. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh, by judgment dated 08.06.2016, had allowed the writ
petitioner with a direction to the appellants to pass a fresh award following
RRR,J & HN,J
the provisions of the Act and to grant compensation to the respondents
including, statutory benefits under the Act, within a period of four months
from the date of the receipt of the order.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have moved
this Court by way of the present writ appeal.
6. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition is that the land in question was government land and no
compensation could be paid in relation to the said structures, as they
were located on the government land. The learned Single Judge, while
considering this contention, had held that the said contention was never
placed before the respondents at any stage nor were any steps taken to
publish an errata notice deleting the structures from the notification issued
under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The
learned Single Judge also noticed that the second appellant had
inspected the structures on 04.03.2009 and 05.03.2009 along with the
engineering officials, who did not give any inspection notice to the
respondents. After taking all the above facts, the learned Single Judge
held that the said action of the appellants in refusing to pay the
compensation under the Act is invalid.
7. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the structures,
are now submerged and it would be impossible to verify the claim of the
RRR,J & HN,J
appellants as to whether the structures of the petitioners were situated on
government land or not.
8. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the
authorities should have taken steps to issue errata or delete the
structures from the acquisition proceedings by issuing notices to the
respondents, so as to enable them to set out their grounds of objection.
The contention of the appellants, after the structures stand submerged,
that the structures were on the government land, cannot be accepted.
9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge. 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.
