Disposed

Maddi Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Oct 2021WP/6143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since the third respondent, the competent authority, had not yet certified the land condition, the second respondent could not be compelled to act. The third respondent was directed to submit a report within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to submit a report to the second respondent within four weeks; the second respondent is to dispose of the representations within four weeks thereafter.

Maddi Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2021

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“the court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.11.2020 to pay compensation for the submerged lands of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 0.56 cents in Sy. No. 58/2 and Ac. 2.24 cents in Sy. No. 58/3 i.e., total land admeasuring Ac. 2.80 cents of land situated at Modepalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District due to the water storage which over flows from the Kandula Obula Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and accordingly direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation in accordance with the law on par with the compensation to the neighboring lands as per the G.O Rt. No. 354 dated 06.07.2020 in view of the provisions of right to fair compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and to pass such other order.”

¶7

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 0.56 cents in Sy. No.58/2 and Ac. 2.24 cents in Sy. No. 58/3 i.e., totaling Ac. 2.80 cents of land situated at Modepalli Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. The same was acquired by the petitioner from his assisters‟ and has been cultivating the same for the past thirty years by raising various crops. The subject land was submerged due to excess water flown from Kandula Obula Reddy Gudlakamma Reservoir Project; due to the gates being closed for storing water in the reservoir. It is pertinent to mention here that during rainy season water level in the petitioner‟s land is increasing to higher level and land of petitioner becomes completely un-accessable. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had

¶8

¶9

initiated the process for construction of Gudlakamma Reservoir Project in the year 2008 had acquired land in the surrounding villages which are situated near by Modepalli village vide G.O.Rt.No. 423 dated 19.05.2008 by declaring them as „fully submerged villages‟ and compensation was paid to the affected families in those villages as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; but the Government had not acquired the land of petitioner along with few other villagers, and did not pay any compensation to them as on date.

¶10

On the other hand, water was released in the Kandula Obula Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project and due to the storage, water had flown from the project into the neighboring land and the petitioner‟s land is completely submerged, which damaged the existing crop and the plantation of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner made a representation to the 2^nd respondent to pay compensation and brought to his notice, that for more than 10 years, he is not able to cultivate the land as the water level is gradually increasing and requested to conduct survey of affected land covered under the Kandula Obula Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project, so as to determine the compensation for the affected land and crop in villages including the land of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 vide its proceedings dated 20.12.2019 intimated that the water flow is rising at high level, as such, conducting survey of land is not feasible at the point of time and that he would be able to conduct survey, once when the water flow reaches normal level. The petitioners further made a representation dated 10.06.2020 to the respondent No.2 requesting to provide rehabilitation or compensation for the project affected land. But, no action was taken so far. The State of Andhra Pradesh in view of G.O. Ms. No. 389 dated 20.12.2014 passed G.O.Ms.No.262 dated 13.07.2015 for early

¶11

¶12

completion of the water projects; passed an order for providing higher compensation than the amount payable as per the Section 108(1) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and amended the Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Rules, 2014 by inserting a new Rule 28A for payment of higher compensation than the permitted amount under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. It is further submitted that in view of G.O.Ms.No. 262 dated 13.07.2015, the State Government has passed G.O.Rt.No. 492 dated 25.04.2016 and formed a State level committee for clearing the proposal of paying higher compensation as per the G.O.Ms.No. 262 dated 13.07.2015 expeditiously. But so far, the representation of the petitioner is not considered by the 2^nd respondent and the inaction of the respondent is now questioned by the writ petitioner, in this Writ Petition.

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed on record the written instructions received from the office of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition vide letter Lr.RC.Sr/61/2020 dated 18.03.2021 wherein it is stated as follows:-

¶14

“It is to submit that after observing he availability of Records in my office, the petitioner filed Representation to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation on 25-11-2019. After that the Superintending Engineer sent a letter to the applicant. Stating that “The Executive Engineer GRP Division No.2, Ongole is stated that on 28.11.2019 concerned Deputy Executive Engineer are visited under the limits of Modepalli, all the applicants are verifying the area of under the Gudlakamma Reservoir under the portion of lands in the limits of Modepalli, the above Sy. Nos. lands, Jamaoil Gardens, and Gardens are in good condition but the water flow is high, down the water of FRL to survey the lands and enquire into the matter and take necessary action.”

¶15

¶16

No counter is filed by the respondent No.3 and no representation as on date.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶18

As it could be seen from the material available on record, submission of various representations by the petitioner is not in dispute, but they are pending with the 3^rd respondent, who is competent authority to certify the condition of the land of petitioner. But no action is taken by the 3^rd respondent. Thereby the 2^nd respondent cannot be compelled to take any action unless a report is sent by Executive Engineer, GRP Division, Ongole. Hence, the 3^rd respondent is directed to submit a report to the 2^nd respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of report, the 2^nd respondent is directed to dispose of the representations made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, keeping in view the earlier various G.Os referred to supra within four week thereafter.

¶19

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶20

_______________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

Date: 04.10.2021 Psr.

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶24

Writ Petition No. 6143 of 2021

¶25

Dated 04.10.2021

¶26

Psr.

Maddi Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddi Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medam Pedda Vengal Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

Aiyana Tulasamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pamchuru Madhusudan Vs The. State of Ap

P Nagabhushana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Kusumamba Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Jamunamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh