Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Mogaparthi Somababu on 23 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
APHC010355652021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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: 752/2021
Between:
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Mogaparthi Somababu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The land of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.15.51 cents in
Sy.Nos.27/1, 27/5, 28/1, 28/3 of Mangapathidevipeta Village, Koyyalagudem
Mandal, West Godavari District, was the subject matter of acquisition, for the
purposes of rehabilitating the persons who had lost their lands in the
Polavaram Project.
2. A Notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2
2013 [for short "the Act 30 of 2013"] was Gazetted on 11.09.2016 for
acquisition of approximately Ac. 55.00 cents of land, including Ac.15.00 cents
of land belonging to the respondents herein, subsequently, an award bearing
Roc.E-217751/2016/R&R, dated 02.08.2017 was also passed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Jangareddygudem, West
Godavari and the same was approved by the District Collector, West Godavari
at Eluru.
3. After the aforesaid award had been passed, the acquisition was
sought to be reversed by dropping all further proceedings including the award.
4. Aggrieved by the said action of the Acquisition Authorities, the
private respondents herein had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.9409
of 2018. The contention of the private respondents herein, was that, the
consent of the private respondents was sought by the Acquisition Authorities
for advance possession of the land and that on account of the consent given
by the private respondents, advance possession of the land was taken and
proceedings for passing the award had been continued. The private
respondents contend on account of the fact that the advance possession of
the land had already been taken, the Acquisition Authorities cannot reverse
the acquisition process in view of the bar under Section 93 of the Act 30 of
2013.
5. The Acquisition Authorities, who are the appellants herein, had
contended that the advance possession of the land was not taken and they
3
were only paper proceedings showing such possession being taken. It was
contended that as possession has not been taken, the bar under Section 93 of
the Act 30 of 2013 would not apply and it would also be open to the appellants
to withdraw from the acquisition.
6. The Learned Single Judge after going through the material placed
before him and after considering the submissions made by both sides, had
held that advance possession of the land was taken and consequently, the bar
under Section 93 of the Act 30 of 2013 would operate. The Learned Single
Judge took this view on the basis of the statements in the draft award dated
14.04.2017 as well as the E-Tender Notification, dated 17.01.2018, issued by
the Tribal Welfare Engineering Department and the fact that a layout was
made on the land and the plots had been demarcated.
7. The Learned Single Judge, after arriving at the aforesaid findings,
had held that the bar under Section 93 of the Act 30 of 2013 would operate
and allowed the Writ Petition.
8. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order dated
23.08.2021 have filed the present Writ Appeal.
9. The Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would
contend, that there is an elaborate procedure set out under the provisions of
the Act 30 of 2013 and the Rules about the manner in which possession of the
land is to be taken under the Act 30 of 2013. He would further submit that the
said procedure had not been followed and the same would amount no
4
possession of the land being taken. He would further submit that the
statements in the draft award are only paper statements and the
documentation shown by the private respondents would only show paper
possession being taken and that there was no physical possession taken by
the appellants. He would also contend that the subsequent reports obtained
from the Revenue Authorities, in the year 2021-22 would show that the private
respondents are in possession of the land and are continuing to cultivate the
land. He would also rely upon certain photographs produced along with the
additional affidavit to contend that the land in question is under cultivation and
the said cultivation is being carried on by the private respondents.
10. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati for the private respondents would submit
that the finding of the Learned Single Judge that advance possession of the
land was taken, was on the basis of cogent material and after due
consideration of the said material. He would submit that nothing has been
placed before this Court to dispute the finding of the Learned Single Judge.
He would further submit that even if it is still taken that the private respondents
are continuing to cultivate the land, it would at best amount to encroachment
of the land after they had lost title and possession of the land and nothing
more. He would contend, that the question before the Court, is whether, at
relevant point of time, possession of the land was taken or not. If it is
demonstrated that the possession of the land had been taken, the land would
vest with the State and any subsequent developments on the land would not
5
change the facts and would not remove the bar under Section 93 of the Act 30
of 2013.
CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:-
11. Section 93 of the Act 30 of 2013 reads as follows:-
"Section -93: Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed.
(1) The appropriate Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
(2) Whenever the appropriate Government withdraws from any such
acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due
for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any
proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person
interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the
prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land."
12. This provision, mandates that the Acquisition Authorities cannot
withdraw from the acquisition once possession of the land has been taken.
13. In the present case, the Learned Single Judge had held that
possession was taken over by the authorities on the following grounds:-
I. The draft land acquisition award dated 14.04.2017 specifically
states that the land owners had given their consent for acquisition and that the
advance possession of the land was taken.
II. This sentence which was, present in the draft land acquisition
award dated 14.04.2017 was repeated in the revised draft acquisition award,
dated 02.08.2017. It would only strengthen the observation in the award dated
14.04.2017.
III. The respondents had made a layout plan which would not have
been done unless possession of the land had been taken in advance. This is
6
because, the question of dividing the land into plots could have been
undertaken only after actual physical possession was taken.
IV. The Tribal Welfare Department had issued a E-Tender Notice
dated 17.01.2018 for development of the said land. Such a E-Tender Notice
could not have been initiated unless the actual physical possession of the land
is available with the Acquisition authorities.
14. The learned Government Pleader, for Land Acquisition, in
response to these findings, would only point out that the procedures
necessary for taking over possession had not been followed and that the
present records shows that the private respondents are still in possession and
are carrying on cultivation in the land.
15. The occupation of the petitioners, over the land, whether true are
not, may not make any difference to the primary question as to whether
possession was taken over in the year 2017 or not. If such possession was
taken over in the 2017, the land vests with the State and the bar under
Section 93 of the Act 30 of 2013 would be applicable.
16. We are in respectful agreement with the findings of the Learned
Single Judge and the reasons given by the Learned Single Judge, to hold that
possession of land had been taken over by the Authorities.
17. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the order dated 23.08.2021 of the Learned Single Judge.
7
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order of this Court,
is restricted to the land of the private respondents herein only. 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.752 OF 2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 23.09.2024
BSM
