Dismissed

R. Sivappa, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2023WP/4088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of full compensation for land acquired for NH-219. Holding that the petitioner, having signed consent forms, should have approached the Arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5) of the NH Act for quantum disputes, the Court found no merit in the prayer.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

R. Sivappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4088 of 2021

¶3

R. Sivappa, S/o R. Rajappa, aged about 47 years, R/o H.No.417, Paipalyam Village, Vasandadu Post, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas, Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue, Sri S.S. Varma, learned Standing counsel

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed to declare action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not paying full compensation in respect of petitioner’s land admeasuring 133.33 square yards (0.0286 hectares) situated in survey No.272/3, Animiganipalli village, H/o Ekarlapalli, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, acquired for the purpose of NH-219, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

In the affidavit, it was contended that petitioner possesses plot No.56, admeasuring 133.33 square yards in survey No.273/3 i.e. the subject property. Notification under Section 11(1) of Act 30 of 2013 was issued for acquisition of land for

Page 2 of 4

SRS,J

W.P.No.4088 of 2021

NH-219. Petitioner’s land was also notified in the said notice. On 01.02.2018, part compensation of Rs.1,11,866/- was deposited in the petitioner’s account, by the Land Acquisition Officer. As per the market value certificate issued by SubRegistrar value of land is Rs.25,333/- per square yard. Petitioner issued notice to respondent No.3 stating that the value fixed is very low and sought enhancement of the value. Respondent No.3, in turn, addressed letter to respondent No.4 vide Roc.No.D1/GC/2019 dated Nil.06.2019, directing respondent No.4 to send correct report along with the records. Though land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year, 2016, full compensation is not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

¶16

Counter affidavit, deposed by respondent No.3, is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was contended, inter alia, that land of an extent of Ac.5-0281 cents in survey No.237/1C2, Ekarlapalle village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, was acquired by competent authority for land acquisition by way of award No.18-2017/NH/219/2017-18 dated 16.06.2017 for public purpose. In the process, 6354 square yards of land in survey No.273-3A was also acquired. The subject land of the petitioner was also acquired and an amount of Rs.1,11,274/was awarded. Petitioner signed forms C and CC and gave

Page 3 of 4

SRS,J

W.P.No.4088 of 2021

consent for payment of compensation. Accordingly, the

¶21

petitioner was paid total compensation. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶22

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶23

As seen from the award filed along with the counter, petitioner’s land of an extent of 0.0286 (133 square yards) was acquired and vide award No.18 of 2017 an amount of Rs.1,11,274/- was awarded to the petitioner. Petitioner signed form of C and CC giving consent for payment of compensation. If the petitioner is aggrieved regarding the quantum of compensation petitioner ought to have made application before the Arbitrator, under Section 3(G)(5) of the NH Act. The prayer in the writ petition to direct the respondents to pay compensation is misconceived. This Court does not find any merits in this writ petition.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall

¶26

stand closed.

¶27

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

¶28

Date : 06.09.2023 ikn

Page 4 of 4

SRS,J

W.P.No.4088 of 2021

135

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.4088 of 2021

¶35

Date : 06.09.2023

¶36

ikn

R. Sivappa, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sivappa, v. The 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

E Narsimhappa Vs State of Ap

G v Rama Subbaiah Vs the State of Ap

Dunna Peda Ramaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vadde Nagamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aakula Jaya Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Nuthakki Venkatappaiah Vs The State of Ap