Dismissed

Shaik Kareemulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Mar 2023WP/12055/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the demolition of petitioners' houses alleged to be for road widening without land compensation. Citing prior validity of land acquisition and receipt of structure compensation, the Court found no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach competent authorities for compensation claim.

Shaik Kareemulla Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY .THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12055 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Kareemulla. S/o Allabakash. Aged 42 years, R/o old d.no. 5/32 new D.No.5/31. resident of Main road. Bazzar Street, diguvapet. Siddavatam town Kadapa District

¶9

Atikari Srinivasulu. S/o A. Venkataswami. Aged 43 years. R/o old d.no. 5/109 new d.no.5/133. resident of Main road. Bazzar Street, diguvapet. Siddavatam town. Kadapa District

¶10

Pandugayala Venkatasubbamma. .W/o Late P.Venkataiah. Aged 55 years. R/o old d.no. 7/119 new d.no.7/110. resident of Main road. Bazzar Street diguvapet. Siddavatam town. Kadapa District

¶11

S.Subbarayudu. .s/o S.Kondaiah. Aged 84 years. R/o old d.no.7/64 new d.no. 7/112, resident of Main road, Bazzar Street, diguvapet, Siddavatam town Kadapa District ’

¶12

Sriram Mysuraiah, S/o late Balasuraiah, Aged 52 years, R/o old d.no 1/70 new d.no.2/42, resident of Main Road, Eguvapet, Siddavatam town, Kadapa District.

¶13

Kalisetty Jayarama kumar. (LR of K.Jayamma died) s/o Late Balachadrudu Aged 44 years. R/o old d.no.2/38 new D.No.2/102.

¶14

(Petitioners 5 & 6 are residents of Main Road. Eguvapet. Siddavatam town Kadapa District)

¶15

K.Mallikarjuna Rao. S/o K.Seshaiah. aged 59 years, r/o old d.no.1/68. new d.no.2/41. main road eguvapet. siddavatam kadapa district (now presently R/o 3-145-6-19. sapthagiri nagar. kadiri road, madanapalle town, chittoor district)

¶16

AND

¶17

...PETITIONER(S)

¶18

TheMIC Stateowre ofOT AndhraMnonra Pradesh.Kraoesh. Rep.Rep. byby itsits Pr.SecretaryPr.Secretary. R.B Department. Secretariat Velagapudi village Amaravati mandal. Guntur district.

¶19

2.2. The.SuperintendingThe.Superintending Engineer.Engineer. RoadsRoads Buildings,Buildings. kadapa.'Kadapa.

¶20

' 3. The Executive Engineer. Roads Buildings. Kadapa

¶21

The District Collector. Kadapa.

¶22

The Revenue Divisional Officer. Rajampet. Kadapa District.

¶23

The Tahsildar. Siddavattam. Kadapa District.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the Petitioners houses viz 1®* petitioner is R/o old d.no. 5/32 new D-.No.5/31, 2nd petitioner is R/o old d.no. 5/109 new d.no.5/133, 3rd petitioner is R/o old d.no, 7/119 new d.no.7/110, 4th petitioner R/o old d.no.7/64 new d.no. 7/112, who are residents of Main road, Bazzar Street, diguvapet, Siddavatam town, Kadapa District and 5th petitioner is R/o old d.no. 1/70 new d.no.2/42, 6th petitioner is resident of R^ old d.no.2/38 new D.No.2/102, and 7th petitioner is r/o old d.no.1/68, new d.no.2/41, who are residents of main road Eguvapet, siddavatam town of kadapa district, for the purpose of road widening without payment of compensation by the authorities to the land also of the petitioners where the above houses of the petitioners are built/standing and without following the due process of law as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to restrain the respondents from demolishing the houses of the petitioners under the guise of road widening without payment of compensation for the land of the houses of the petitioners by the respondents as stated above. (Prayer is amended as per the C.O. dated 28.03.2023 vide order passed in lA No.2 of 2023)

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶27

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the houses of the Petitioners viz., 1st petitioner is R/o old d.no. 5/32 new D.No.5/31, 2"“ petitioner is R/o old d.no. 5/109 new d.no.5/133, 3rc petitioner is R/o old d.no, 7/119 new d.no.7/110, 4th petitioner R/o old d.no.7/64 new d.no. 7/112, who are residents of Main road, Bazzar Street, diguvapet, Siddavatam town, Kadapa District and 5th petitioner is R/o old d.no. 1/70 new d.no.2/42, 6th petitioner is resident of R/o old d.no.2/38 new D.No.2/102, and 7th petitioner is r/o old d.no.1/68, new d.no.2/41, who are residents, of main road Eguvapet, siddavatam town of kadapa district, pending disposal, of the writ petition.

1»*

lA N	O: 1 OF 2023
	1 BETWEEN:- 1. The District Collector Kadapa
	2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Rajampet Kadapa District
''	3. The Tahsildar Siddayattam Kadapa District .
/	... Petit ipners/Respondents AND
,	1. SHAIK KAREEMULLA, S/o Allabalcash Aged 42 years R/o old d no 5/32 new D No 5/31 resident of Main road Bazzar Street diguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa District
e'	2. Atikari Srinivasulu, S/o A Venkataswami Aged 43 years R/o old d no 5/109 new d no 5/133 resident of Main road Bazzar Street diguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa District
	3. Pandugayala Venkatasubbamma, W/o Late P Venkataiah Aged _55 _years R/o old d no _Hl _19 new d no 7/110 resident of Main road Bazzar Street . diguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa District
.	4. S Subbarayudu, s/o S Kondaiah Aged 84 years R/o old d no 7/64 new d no 7/112 resident of Main road Bazzar Street diguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa District
	5. Sriram Mysuraiah, S/o late Balasuraiah Aged 52 years R/o old d no 1/70 new d no 2/42 resident of Main Road Bguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa district
	6. Kalisetty Jayarama kumar, LR of K Jayamma died s/o 4ate Balachadrudu Aged 44 years R/o old d no 2/38 new D No 2/102 Petitioners 5 6 are residents of Main Road Eguvapet Siddavatam town Kadapa District
	7. K Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o K Seshaiah aged 59 yearsr/o old d no 1/68 new d no 2/4-1 main road eguvapet siddavatam kadapa district now presently
	R/o 3145619 sapthagiri nagar kadiri road madanapalle town chittoor district

¶32

.. .Responents/Petitioners

¶33

} I

¶34

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
-Rep_^ by its Pr Secretary R B Department Secretariat
< Velagapudi village Amaravaty mandal Guntur district

¶35

The Superintending Engineer ' , Roads Buildings Kadapa

¶36

The Executive Engineer
, Roads Builc|ngs Kadapa
(R8 to R10 are not necessary parties in this petition) -Responents/Responents

¶37

vacate the interim order dated 25.6.2021 in WP.No.12055/2021.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S. S. BHATT

¶39

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶40

Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

¶43

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶44

Writ Petition No. 12055 of 2021

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶47

of the CoHsfitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶48

"...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the Petitioners’ houses viz., 1^ petitioner is R/o.old d.no.5/32. new D.No.5/31, 2'“‘petitioner is R/o.old d.no.5/109, new d.no.5/133, 3^ petitioner is R/o old d.no.7/119 new d.no.7/110, 4*^^petitionerR/o.old d.no.7/64, newd.no. 7/112, who are residents of Main road, Bazzar Street, Diguvapet, Siddavatam town, Kadapa District and 5^ p^tioner is R/o old d.no. 1/70 new d.ho.2/42, 6^ petitioner is resident of old d.no.2/38, new D.No.2/102, and. 7»' petitioner is r/o.old d.no. 1/68, new d.no.2/41, who are residents of main road, Eguvapet, Siddavatam town of kadapa district, for the purpose of road widening without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently desist the respondentsfrom demolishing the houses of the Petitioners under the guiseof road widening and pass ’

¶49

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the absolute owners and permanent residents of Eguvapet, and Diguvapeta of Siddavatam, kadapa District by constructing small houses. They are eking out their livelihood by doing agricultural works and other coolie works. On 02.01.2021, the revenue and

¶50

llfc ■ I I

¶51

¶52

R&B officials have visited the subject area and took measurements for laying road. As the respondents are trying to interfere and demolish the petitioners’ structures without following due procedure and land acquisition proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

¶53

The 3'’'* respondent has filed a counter stating that, earlier the work “Widening and Strengthening of Kadapa-PorumamUla Road from Km. 17/0 to 19/0 (Siddivatam Town limits) in Kadapa District” has been sanctioned for Rs.300 Lakhs under Corenet Plan Scheme vide TS.No.21/APRDC Works/MD APRDC/2008-09, dated 20.01.2009 of the Chief Engineer (R&B) — cum — Managing Director, APRDC, Hyderabad and the said work was closed as per the orders vide Memo No.ll05/APRDC/GM/DCE-I/DEE-IX/AEEXII/2008, dated 29.02.2012 as per the request of the contractor for closer of work and due to the pending issues in land acquisition to an extent of 50 feet road.

¶54

Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 174.50 Lakhs has been provided in the estimate for land acquisition process and the 6* respondent/Tahsildar, Siddavatam has given possession /hAnding over certificate of the 134 structures out of 202 structures required which falls under the road stretch from Km. 17/0 to 19/0 in Siddavatam Town limits.

¶55

¶56

¶57

The petitioners along with others have earlier filed W.P.No.20820 of 2016 seeking a direction not to interfere with their properties or undertake demolition except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law. The said writ petition was disposed of as prayed for by the petitioners wherein the respondents were directed not dispossess the petitioners from their properly without following due process of law.

¶58

Thereafter, the respondent authorities have followed the procedure and the 6* respondent/Tahsildar has issued possession handing over certificate on 15.07.2016 and handed over possession to the 3'''^ respondent/Executive Engineer including the petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 except the petitioner.

¶59

After handing over the possession to the contractor for execution of work, the R 86 B Department has to clear the structures and any encroachments upon the road boundaries and for the same purpose, the R 86 B authorities conducted joint inspection on 02.01.2021 for removal of structures and for which the compensation was paid as per the land acquisition, including the petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 85 1 and requested the petitioners to vacate the portion of land and structures in order to hand-over to the Department.

¶60

¶61

In turn, some of the land owners had vacated and handed over the possession to the R 85 B Department but the petitioners failed to vacate the said land and structures as per the land acquisition proceedings.

¶62

The counter further states that the petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 1 have received the compensation for structures including the plinth area on 27.06.2016. On 27.06.2016 itself, having received the said compensation, the petitioners have been resisting the respondents from taking possession of the said land, because of which, the respondents could not take up the developmental activities i.e., the extension and widening of the Road.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioners has seriously objected for the same and admitted the fact that the respondents have paid the compensation for the structures but failed to pay the compensation for the land.

¶64

The 6th respondent i.e., the Tahsildar has also filed a counter wherein it is stated as follows:

¶65

«r

¶66

i. Soon q/ter receipt 0/ requisition from the Executive Erigij^er, R&B, Kadapa pertaining to widening of Kadapa - Porumamilla Road in Sidhout Village and Mandal, the then District Collector, Kadapa

¶67

¶68

has instructed to submit Draft Notification proposals regarding the aforesaid Land Acquisition.

¶69

a. Accordingly after submission of the Draft Notification proposals by the then Tahsildar, Sidhout Mandal through the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, the then District Collector, Kadapa has approved the same for 202 structures including the present petitioners vide their RefNo. 02/3266/2010, dated 09.09.2010 and published the same vide Gazette No. 1048, dated 13.09.2010 which was also published in two daily newspapers i.e., Andhra Prabha and Andhra Boomi respectively on 25.09.2010 and the said copies are submitted herewithfor kind perusal.

¶70

Hi. Later, Draft Declaration was approved by the then District Collector, Kadapa vide their Ref. No. G2/3266/2010, dated 10.03.2011 for 22 structures existing in patta lands and the same was published vide Gazette No. 1120, dated 11.03.2011 and it was also published in two daily newspapers i.e., Andhra Prabha and Andhra Boomi respectively on 02.04.2011 and the said copies are submitted herewith for kind perusal.

¶71

iv. The Negotiations are conducted on 19.08.2011 with the structure losers by the Committee comprising of Chairman - the then District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa, Members- the then Joint Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa / the then Tahsildar, Sidhout Mandal / the then Executive Engineer, R&B, Kadapa and Convener- the then Land Acquisition Officer -cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet and confirmed rate @ Rs. 78.05 paise per Sq.ft and also the then District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa has approved Premilinary Value proposals vide their RefNo. G2/3266/2010, dated 22.10.2011.

¶72

V. Further, the then District Collector, Y.S.R. District, Kadapa has instructed to pass consent award

¶73

¶74

for the extent 40,294 sq ft. of Sidhout Village and Mandal pertaining to widening of Kadapa Porumamill Road and submit the same for approval vide their RefNo. 02/3266/2010, dated 04.05.2012. -

¶75

vi. Accordingly, the then Sub Collector, Rajampet vide Ref No. H/1798/2009, dated 22.09.2012 has passed consent award and award for 189 structures for 40,294 sq ft. of Sidheut Village and Mandal pertaining to the aforesaid acquisition.

¶76

uii. The details of the compensation received by the present petitioners are detailed below;

¶77

*Petitioner* *No. in the* *present* *case*	*Name of the* *present* *petitioner*	*Structur* *No.*	e *Plinth* *area* (sq.ft.) *acquired*	*Cheque No.* *& date*	*Amount* *paid in Rs.*	*Remarks*
1	*Shaik* *Kareemulla*	16	*262*		*1,14,330/-*
2	*Aikari* *Srinivasulu*	42	*132*	*047080, dt:* *04.03.2013*	*49,476/-*
3	*Pandugayala* *Venkata* *Subbamma*	*Due to n* *name w* _land at _ *followin* *natural j*	*on-availabil* *as not show* _road margin _ *g the proce* *ustice*	*ity of structur* *n, later he co* *and further ac* *ss of law i.e.*	*e during acq* *nstructed ho* _tion will be _ *, by followi*	*uisition time, his* *use on acquired* *commenced duly* *ng principles of*
4	S. *Subbarayudu*	70	*296*	*047094, dt* *04.03.2013*	*85,782/-*
5	*Sriram* *Mysuraiah*	34	*168*	*047017, dt* *04.03.2013*	*80,825/-*
6	*Kalisetty* *Jayarama* *Kumar (LR* *K.Jayamma* *died)*	9	*189*	*047005, dt:* *04.03.2013*	*1.07,943/-*	*Petitioner* *mother late K.* *Jamma* *received* *cheque during* *her life time*
7	*K.MaIlikarjuna* *Rao*	35	*156*		*1,09,881/-*

¶78

¶79

On a perusal of counters of 3*^ and 6^^* respondents, it appears that the Award was passed in the year 2012 itself. Upon which, the petitioners have received the said compensation as stated above without any protest. And if at all, the petitioners are aggrieved, it is appropriate to approach the competent authorities for enhancement of the compensation. Having received the compensation on 22.09.2012 in pursuance of an Award, the petitioners cannot refuse to vacate the said land which is in fact acquired for the widening and strengthening of the road.

¶80

In view of the same, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed however leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the competent authorities for their claim, if at all they are aggrieved. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶81

As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶82

SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

^/sEC^feVoFNCER

The Principal Secretary, R.B Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶87

Secretariat Velagapudi village Amaravati Mandal, Guntur District

¶88

The Superintending Engineer, Roads Buildings, Kadapa

¶89

. 3. The Executive Engineer, Roads Buildings, Kadapa

¶90

The District Collector, Kadapa.

¶91

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

¶92

b. The Tahsildar, Siddavattam, Kadapa District.

¶93

One CC to Sri. S. S. Bhatt Advocate [OPUC]

¶94

9 tZ pp! no Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10 Two CD Copier of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Sdkr AG

¶95

¶96

HIGH COURT DATED^28/03/2023

¶97

ORDER

¶98

WP.No.12055 of 2021

¶99

2 1 SEP 2023 ’S)
. Current Section

¶100

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Shaik Kareemulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Kareemulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.V. Narasimhamurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Babu Rao, Vs The Executive Engineer

The Managing Director Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadali Dharma Raju Vs the State of Ap

Dutta Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Abdul Subhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh