Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Secretary To The Government vs Sri Malleswara And Sitarama Swamy ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010155622018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 395/2018
Between:
The Secretary To The Government and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Sri Malleswara And Sitarama Swamy Temples ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)
2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. N V ANANTHA KRISHNA
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
An extent of Ac.13.28 cents of land in Sy.No.283/1 and Ac.7.72
cents of land in Sy.No.284/2 of Chandarlapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna
District, belonging to the respondent-temple was sought to be acquired for the
purpose of providing house-sites to the poor.
2. The notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[for short „the Act, 1894‟], for this purpose was issued in February, 2004 and
2
subsequently, a consent award is said to have been passed under Section
11(2) of the Act, 1894 on 31.03.2004. It was also stated that the possession of
this land was taken on 26.02.2004.
3. The said acquisition process was challenged before the erstwhile
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.24429 of 2006. A Learned Single
Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, by an order
dated 24.10.2017 had allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the acquisition
process. However, the Learned Single Judge had left it open to the appellants
to initiate fresh acquisition of the land after obtaining necessary permission
from the Division Bench, in view of the orders dated 30.05.2006 in
W.P.No.10547 of 2006.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been
filed by the appellants.
5. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition that there was extreme urgency in the matter due to which
permission had been taken from the Endowment Department and the
acquisition authority could not approach this Court in time.
6. It was noted that the Learned Single Judge had set aside the
matter also on the ground that Section-24 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act,
2013 [for short "the Act, 2013"] require the acquisition authorities to take
3
possession of the land and also to pay compensation, whereas compensation
had not been paid while the possession of the land had been taken.
The Learned Single Judge had taken the view that the acquisition process had
to be set aside on the ground that the compensation had not been paid. For
this purpose, the Learned Single Judge relied upon a Judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors1.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would
contend that the Honb‟le Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors 2 had held that the provisions of Section-24
would be available to an affected person only if both conditions of payment of
compensation and taking over of the property had not been taken up.
8. In view of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors the finding of
the Learned Single Judge to the extent of the application of Section-24 of the
Act, 2013 has to be set aside.
9. However, the requirement of the acquiring authority obtaining
permission from this Court, in view of the order dated 30.05.2006 in
W.P.No.10547 of 2006 remains. Infraction of this requirement can only lead to
setting aside of the acquisition process. To this extent the Judgment of the
Learned Single Judge is affirmed.
1
2014 (3) SCC 183
2
2020 (8) SCC 129
4
10. Consequently, this Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the
appellant authorities to either restore the land to the respondent-temple or to
undertake acquisition of the said land, after obtaining permission from this
Court.
11. Needless to say, that any such acquisition would require
compensation to be paid to the respondent-temple by taking into account the
market value of the land as on the date on which a fresh notification shall be
issued. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
________________
HARINATH.N, J.
BSM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
W.A No.395 OF 2018
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 09.09.2024
BSM
