Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (Apiic) v. N Ananda Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Aug 2023WA/580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed four writ appeals filed by APIIC and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging Single Judge orders that allowed writ petitions by a land dispute petitioner. The court held that recorded cooperation did not equal consent to compensation rates and dismissed appeals with costs scaled down to Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals of WP.No.12144 of 2021 and W.P.No.13586 of 2019 dismissed; costs reduced to Rs. 10,000.

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 580,147 AND 584 OF 2022 AND 588 OF 2021

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 580 OF 2Q22 :

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the orders passed by the dated 01.09.2021 passed in W.P. No. 12144 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Rep by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, APIIC Head Office, Industrial Park Mangalagiri, Guntur District

¶11

Meager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

¶12

(APIIC) Zonal Office, Industrial Estate, Pilligundla, Ananthapuramu

¶13

...APPELLANT(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

1. N Ananda Reddy, S/o B Narasimha Reddy Aged 46 years South Block 6th Cross Near Govt School Marath Halli Benguluru Karnataka

¶16

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Su P^rtment, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶17

3. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu District, Ananthapuramu

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Penukonda Division Earlier Hindupur Division Ananthapuramu District

¶19

Sung gel India Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Plot Nos 59C and 59D, Gollapuram, APIIC Director^ Ananthapuramu District, Rep by its Managing

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of order dated 01.09.2021 passed in

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶24

Pehtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 01.09.2021 passed in WP. No. 12144/2021, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.

¶25

counsel for the Appellants): SRI. d ^G^ASIMH^^ (SC FOR APIIC) Counsel tor the Respondent No.l SRI P P®’ R=°£vENUE counsel for the Responden Nos2 to 4 ^VENUt Counsel for the Respondent No.5 . SRI K SRINIVAb

¶26

WRIT APPEAL NO: 147 OF 2022

¶27

ofWritZeXl^veJ^X^rdXd™ of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶28

Csion,

¶29

Ananthapurannu Distnc^ R®,SP°"'’^?^V"rX'pnC)

¶30

Andhra Pradesti Industrial '9j[os<''doturepCofP^o 'orfice. 'industrial Park' Chairman-cum-Managing Director, AKiiu

¶31

Mangalagiri, Guntur District industrial Infrastructure Corporation

¶32

Jl;p%^?"/o'naTo"^.?:?lnS i fj-Ji.gu^ndla^Ana^^^^^^

¶33

®' Sttel S S'ipSr Ananthapuramu District, Rep. by its Managing Director. ...APPELLANT(S)

¶34

...APPELLANT(S)

¶35

Sri.N. Ananda Reddy, S/o. B. N?^''QQ,''^^artha'H Block, 6th cross. Near

¶36

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastr^^^^ ’industrial Park' Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mriiv. Mangalagin, Guntur District industrial Infrastructure Corporation aSl''p"a;t^K^ ‘’V B'Se‘Tra:tVe'c"o.‘’°dr3^S120?^^^^^^ No .147 of 2022)

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC P-V-9 j^uXThTp^Tsed to -‘su'spfndtol otoer'SaSd oTo 9 2021 in W°p" No.12144 of 2021pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶39

counsel for the Appellants): ^THE ADDL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ■ ^^na RASIMHA, SC FOR APIIC Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 SRI J UCKA nm Counsel for the Respondent No.4 . SRI K SRINiv ao

¶40

¶41

¶42

WRIT APPEAL No : 584 OF 2022

¶43

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt 08.03.2021 passed in W.P. 13586/2019, on the file of the High Court.

¶44

Between:

¶45

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, APIIC Head Office, Industrial Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur District

¶46

The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Zonal Office, Industrial Estate, Piligundla, Ananthapuramu

¶47

...APPELLANT(S)

¶48

AND

¶49

1. N Ananda Reddy, S/o B Narasimha Reddy Aged 46 years South Block 6th Cross Near Govt School Marath Halli Benguluru Karnataka

¶50

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue

¶51

Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶52

The District Collector, Ananthapuramu District, Ananthapuramu

¶53

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hindupur Division, Ananthapuramu District

¶54

The Tahsildar, Hindupur Mandal Ananthapuramu District

¶55

Sung gel India Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Plot Nos 59C and 59D, GollapJrarn, APIIC Industrial Park, hindupur, Ananthapuramu District, Rep by Its Managing Director

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

lANO: 1 OF 2022

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filling of the Certified copy of Order dt 08.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.13586/2019.

¶59

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶60

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dt 08.03.2021 passed in W.P No.13586/2019 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶61

Counsel for the Appellantfs) : SRI. J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FOR APIIC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI K SRINIVAS

¶62

WRIT APPEAL NO: 588 OF 2021

¶63

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Orders dated 08.03.2021 passed in W.P. No. 13586 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.

¶64

Between:

¶65

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶66

The District Collector, Ananthapuramu District,Ananthapuramu.

¶67

¶68

¶69

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, Penukonda Division (Earlier Hindupur Division), Ananthapuramu District.

¶70

4. The Tahsildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Appellants

¶71

AND

¶72

1. Sri.N. Ananda Reddy, S/o. B. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 46 years. South Block, 6th Cross, Near Govt. School, Martha Halli, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

¶73

2. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, APIIC Head Office, Industrial Park' Mangalagiri, Guntur District

¶74

3. The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APtrC) Zonal Office, Industrial Estate, Pilligundla, Ananthapuramu.

¶75

4. Sung Gel India Recycling Pvt. Ltd.,, Plot No.59C and 59D, Gollapuram, APIIC Industrial Park, Hindupur, Ananthapuramu District, Rep. by its Managing

¶76

Director

¶77

...Respondents

¶78

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶79

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dt. 08-03-2021 passed in WP.No.13586/2019, pending disposal of the above writ appeal.

¶80

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶81

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to initiate appropriate steps against Sri.M.Naveen (3rd appellant in WA. 588/2021) in terms of Section 195 and 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

¶82

Counsel for the Appellant(s): THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI J UGRA NARASIMHA, SC FOR APIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI K SRINIVAS The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER

¶83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶84

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR Se HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A.V. SESHA SAI

¶85

5yRIT APPEAL No^SO584 OF 2022 -^A88^pf2021

¶86

BA^P^58O of2p22

¶87

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, APIIC Head Office, Industrial Park, Mangalagiri,

¶88

Guntur District and another.

¶89

...Appellants

¶90

Versus

¶91

N.Ananda Reddy, S/o B.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 46 years, South Block, etf'- Cross Near Govt School Marth Halli,

¶92

Benguluru, Karnataka and 4 others.

¶93

...Respondents

¶94

W.A.No.l^'Z qfSpSg

¶95

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 5 others.

¶96

...Appellants

¶97

Versus

¶98

Sri N.Ananda Reddy, S/o B.Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 46 years, South Block, Cross, Near Govt. School, Martha Halli,

¶99

Bengaluru, Karnataka.

¶100

...Respondent

¶101

¶102

J.JiVSS,3 ‘iV.A.J^os.580 of2022jJtatck

¶103

W.A.No.584 of 2022

¶104

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, APIIC Head Office, Industrial Park, Mangalagiri, Gimtur District and another.

¶105

...Appellants

¶106

Versus

¶107

N.Ananda Reddy, S/o B.Narasimha Reddy Aged 46 years, South Block 6th Gross Near Govt School Marth Halh,

¶108

Benguluru, Karnataka and 5 others.

¶109

...Respondents

¶110

W.A.No.588 of 2021

¶111

The State ofAndhra Pradesh,

¶112

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶113

Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 3 others.

...Appellants

Versus

N.Ananda Reddy,

S/o B.Narasimha Reddy Aged 46 years. South Block 6th Gross Near Govt School Marth Halh,

¶118

Benguluru, Karnataka and 5 others.

¶119

...Respondents

¶120

Dated: 30.08.2023

¶121

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon lole Sri Justice A. V.Sesha Sad)

¶122

Heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the

¶123

appellants in W.A.Nos.580 and W.A.N0.S84 of 2022, and Sri K.V.Baghuveer, learned Government Pleader for the appellants^ W.A.Wo. 147 of 2022 and W.A.N0.688 of 2021 and Sri P.Roy Reddy,

7fC7 of2O22^6atcli

learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent No.l hi all the Writ Appeals, apart fpom perusing the material available on record.

¶128

In W.A.Nos.580 Se 147 of 2022, challenge is to the. order. dated 01.09.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Wo.12114 of 2021 and in W.A.Nos.584 8e 588 of 2021, challenge is to the order, dated 08.03.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 13586 of 2019.

¶129

W.P.No.12114 of 2021 came to be instituted, assailing the order, dated 11.05.2021, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapuramu District and W.P.No. 13586 of 2019 came to be filed, questioning the action of the official respondents in treating the subject land of Ac. 1.69 cents out of Ac.5.05 cents situated in Sy.No.303/2 of GoUapuram, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District as part of APIIG Industrial Park and for a consequential direction for restoration of the same to the writ petitioner. By way of the orders impugned in these appeals, the learned single Judges of this Court allowed the Writ Petitions. Hence, the present appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶130

Since the contentions in all these cases are the same and the issues, that are required to be considered by this Court under

¶131

¶132

JfCJ ‘W.A-3^os.S80 of2()22uil)atcfi '

¶133

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are also the same, this Coimt deems it apt and appropriate to hear these cases together and. dispose of these appeals by way of this common order.

¶134

Broadly, there are two contentions that are sought to be pressed into service by the learned coimsel for the appellants. They are:

¶135

1) In view of the consent expressed by the writ petitioner and recorded by the learned single Judge in the Interlocutory Order, dated 06.11.SOSO, in W.P.No.13586 of SOI9, the present Writ Petition, hied by the respondent No.l, assailing the order, dated 11.06.SOS1, should have been dismissed by the learned single Judge; and

¶136

S) Since the petitioner purchased the property in soil i.e., much subsequent to taking possession in SOOS, the learned single Judges ought to have rejected the Writ Petitions.

¶137

Though Right to Property is no longer a Fundamental Right, it continues to be a Constitutional Right, as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this coimtry shall be deprived of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure

¶138

¶139

'W.'A.?''os.580 of2O22^6atcli

¶140

established by law. It is no longer a res Integra that the provisions of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), which prohibits transfer of assigned lands, would not apply in respect of the sales effected for recovery of the loans advanced by the Go-operative institutions, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sub Registrar, Srikalahastbi, Chittoor District and another V. K.Guravaiah^.

¶141

In order to deal with the first contention, as to the alleged expression of consent, it is necessary to refer to the Interlocutory Order of this Court in W.P.No. 13586 of 2019, dated 06.11.2020, which reads as follows:

¶142

“This petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 6in treating the petitioner’s private land in an extent ofAc. 1.69 cents out of Ao. 5.06 cents in Sy.No.303/2 of Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapuram District, as part of the APIIC Industrial Park, Gollapuram, Hindupur Mandal and handing over the same to the 'f‘‘ respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶143

'2009 (2JXM) 250 (DB)

¶144

¶145

'iccs d.AVss.j ‘W.A.y/os.580 of2022d.6atcli

¶146

At the stage of admission, this Court has granted status quo orders.

¶147

After issuing notices to the 5^ and 6^ respondents hied their counter and additional counter affidavit on 09. IS.SO19. In their counter affidavit they have specifically stated that by mistake they have included the subject lands in the list of acquired lands, and the respondents undertake to pay compensation as per the rules of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, S013 (also Land Acquisition Act, SOI 3) for this particular land following due process oflaw.

¶148

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even the same was brought to the notice of the concerned respondents, but they have not acted upon it and they are dragging the matterforyears together.

¶149

Learned Government Pleader appearing for AAG and the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC Limited undertook that they are ready to complete the process within a short period by constitutinga committee asper Rule 8 ofthe Act.

¶150

Having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the respondents le., the State as well as APIIC Limited are directed to complete the process and file a report before this Court as expeditiously as possible and the petitio’' r undertakes to cooperate.

¶151

¶152

JfCJ fSC.A'VSSJ ‘W.A.yfos.S&O of2022kJtatc(i

¶153

Post the matter after three (03) weeks. ”

¶154

It is very much clear and evident from a reading of the above said order, dated 06.11.2020, in W.P.No.13586 of 2019, that duly taking into consideration the averments in the counter and additional counter-affidavits, filed on behalf of the Andbra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, that mistakenly the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 1.69 cents was included, the learned single Judge, by recording the statement of the respondents that they would constitute a Negotiation Committee for deciding the compensation, also observed that the writ petitioner would also undertake to co-operate.

¶155

It is required to be noted that, pursuant to the above interim order, dated 06.11.2020, the issue was referred to the Negotiation Committee, constituted -under Section 23-A of the Act r/w Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2018 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) notified vide G.O.Ms.No.562 Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department dated, 13.11.2018. Thereafter, the committee, so constituted, issued notice to the petitioner in Form-D for his willingness and, admittedly, the petitioner did not express his consent in Form E-I as per Rule 7 of the said Rules. In fact, in

¶156

¶157

‘W.A-y/os.580 ofZOZZ^BatcH

¶158

the Minutes of the Negotiation Committee, dated 08.01.2021, the Negotiation Committee recorded that the petitioner demanded Rs.70,00,000/- per acre, as such, the issue was being referred to Land Acquisition Appellate Authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, which course of action was impermissible.

¶159

When the position being so, W.P.No. 13586 of 2019 came up for consideration before the learned single Judge for hearing and the learned single Judge, taking all the above developments into consideration, disposed of the Writ Petition vide order, dated 08.03.2021, directing to pay compensation in accordance with Act 30 of 2013.

¶160

It is significant to note that, having decided to refer the issue to the Land Acquisition Appellate Authority, earher, vide Mirmteg, dated 08.01.2021, the authorities passed an order, dated 11.05.2021, unilaterally, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.34,60,636/- per acre. Assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the same, W.P.No. 12114 of 2021 came to be instituted and the appellants resisted the said Writ Petition, contending, principally, that the land was resumed in 2008 and the writ petitioner purchased it in 2011 and the petitioner had no locus or right to assail the order, dated 11.05.2021.

¶161

¶162

%C7 ''^JV'Nos.SSO of2O22^atcfi

¶163

It is pertinent to note that, when the predecessor-in-title wanted to get the sale registered in his favour, pursuant to his pimchase in auction, an objection was raised on the ground that the subject land, being an assigned land, would not be amenable for sale, by referring to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act. The vendor of the petitioner filed W.P.No.29731 of 2010 and the same came to be allowed vide order, dated 29.11.2010, turning down the said objection on the groimd that, after purchase in auction for realisation of debts due to the Co-operative Societies, there would be change of nature of property and the land would loose the character of assigned land. Therefore, it would not be open for the appellants to advance any contention contrary to the same.

¶164

The contention of the appellants that, having agreed to co operate with the Negotiation Committee, it would not be open for the writ petitioner to go back. cannot be approved. The cooperation, as observed in the interim order, dated 06.11.2020, cannot be construed as compulsory acceptance to the offer made by the Negotiation Committee.

¶165

At the cost of repetition, it needs to be noted that the Court, in

¶166

¶167

HCJ^AVSS.3 ‘W.A.3fos.580 of2022^atcli

¶168

the said interim order, dated 06.11.2020, observed about the averment in the counter and additional counter that mistakenly the subject land was included and that the compensation would be paid. In fact, the State Authorities also constituted a committee, pursuant to the said order, but the negotiations did not fructify. The observation in the aforesaid order, that the writ petitioner would co-operate, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be construed as a permission to the authorities to pass the order, dated 11.05.2021, despite the absence of any consent by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the contention contra, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶169

In the name of filing the present appeals, the appellant authorities are, obviously, making an impermissible attempt in the direction of reopening the settled issues which have attained finahty.

¶170

The contention that since the petitioner had no title, by the time the resumption orders were passed in 2008, is highly reprehensible and liable to be deprecated, since it is not the case of the authorities that they paid compensation amount to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Laws.

¶171

¶172

'}(CJ 'W.A.^os.SSO of2022^atcli

¶173

Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge in the orders impugned in these appeals, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt to hold that there are no merits in the appeals.

¶174

For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, having regard to the submissions of the learned coimsel, as regards the levy of costs, the amount stands scaled down to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs.50,000/-.

¶175

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these cases, shall

¶176

stand closed.

¶177

Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY^REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECTION^FFICER

¶178

To, 1. o": CC s^' 2. 3. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUCl 4. p“ad?shU°pLc] general , High Court of Andhra 5. Three CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/08/2023

COMMON ORDER

WA.Nos.580, 147 AND 584 of 2022 AND 588 OF 2021

¶183

11 NOV 2023
Current Section
iV’"

¶184

DISMISSING THE WA’s WITHOUT COSTS 10