Disposed

Dutta Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Mar 2023WP/4618/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-payment of compensation for land used to widen a service road. The Court, noting a dispute over prior acquisition and lack of orders on a representation, directed a survey to clarify the extent of land acquired for widening and direct compensation payment thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Survey conducted to verify land extent for road widening; payment of outstanding compensation directed subject to report; interim possession of land reserved.

Dutta Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4618 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

1.1. uunaDutta VenkateswaravenKaieswara Kao,Rao, b/o.beetharamaiah.S/o.Seetharamaiah. AgedAged aboutabout 6060 years,years. R/R/p.q. 5- 35, Vijayawada Road, Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Hanuman Junction - 521105, Krishna District.

¶10

Dutta Sesha Kiranmai. W/o. Dutta Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 52 years, R/o. 5-35, Vijayawada Road, Bapulapadu Village and Mandal, Hanuman Junction - 521 105, Krishna District

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶13

National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its Project Director, Corporate Office Plot No.G-5 and 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi -110 075.

¶14

General Manager and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Plot No;74, Vanamali Building. Beside N.A.C. Kalyana Vedika, Commercial Taxes Colony, Qurunanak Naqar Road Vijayawada - 520 008.

¶15

The Collector, Krishna District.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Vijayawada

¶17

Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings East Sub-Division Vijayawada.

¶18

Revenue Division Officer and Land Acquisition Authority. Gudivada Division Krishna District.

¶19

Tahsildar, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

¶20

Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Vijayawada.

¶21

Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Gannavaram, Krishna . District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in th^ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High 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 respondents not paying compensation to the petitioners for the land utilized in widening the service road connecting Hanuman Junction bye-pass to NH 16 from 3.8 meters to 7.0 meters (total 20 meters including the bank on the either side of the road) between ?.69O KMs to 3.030 KMs is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 30Q A of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners herein are entitled for payment of compensation for the land utilized for laying of road in the petitioners land.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2022 for paying compensation to the petitioners herein insofar it relates to laying of road in the petitioners land without acquiring the same and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 1,5 & 6 : GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI SS VARMA, SC FOR NHAI

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents 4,7 & 8 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents 9 & 10 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶34

. WRIT PETITION No.4618 of 2023

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present Writ Petition came tp be filed under Article 226 of

¶37

the Qpn^titution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶38

"...tg is$U9 a Writ, Qrder gr Diregtion, more particularly one in the nature gf Writ ofMandamus declaring the action ofthe respondents ngt paying cgmpensation tg the petitionersfgr the land utilized in widening the service rggd connecting Hanuman Junction bye-pass to NH16from 3.8 meters tg 7.0 meters (total 20 meters including the bank on the either side of the road) between 2.690 KMs to3.030 KMs is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative gf Articles 14,21 & ^OOA gf the Constitution of India and conseqtwntly dedare that the petitioners herein are entitledforpayment gfcgmpensationfor the land utilizedfor laying gf rgad in the petitioners land and pass such other order gr further orders..."

¶39

¶40

The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners are the absolute owners of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 10.76 cents situated in Sy.No.569 8b 570 of Veleru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. Initially the said land was owned by the father of the l^t petitioner. While so, a cart road was laid in the petitioners land for the purpose of transporting agricultural produce which was not objected by the father of the l«t petitioner. Thereafter, the road was taken

¶41

over by the Panchayat Raj Department and the same was

¶42

maintained by the Panchayat Raj Department.

¶43

¶44

Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that, though the road was taken over by the Panchayat Raj Department, no compensation was paid either to the father of the 1« petitioner or the petitioners. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the said road was handed over to the Roads 85 Buildings Department vide G.O.Ms. No. 176 Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.V.)Department, dated 30.06.2008 and since then, the said road is maintained by the RSgB Department. The width of the said road was 3.8 meters and the length of the said road was 340 meters starting from 2.690 Kms to 3.030 Kms.

¶45

The further case of the petitioners is that, recently a new bye-pass road was laid by National Highways Authority of India near Hanuman Junction through the petitioners’ land connecting the NH16 road and the said bye-pass road, Thereafter, the National Highways Authority thought of expanding the width of the said road from 3.8 meters to 7.0 meters and for the above purpose, NHAI addressed a letter on 30.09.2020 to the Executive Engineer, R85B Division requesting him to accord permission for widening of the said road, which is connecting Hanuman Junction bye-pass road and NH16 as service road. In pursuance to the said letter, the Executive

¶46

¶47

Engineer, “ R8bB Division recorded permission approving tp widen the width of the said road from 3.8 meters to 7.0 meters from Kms.2.690 to Kms 3.030 subject to condition that the ownership of the said road would be with the R&B Department only even after improvement, ^md thereafter, the road was also laid without paying any compensation to the petitioners and since their land has been utilized for widening the service road connecting Hanuman Junction bye-pass tp NH16, the petitioners made a representation to the authorities on 20.12.2022 requesting to pay the compensation to them and since no compensation is paid, the petitioners filed this present writ petition.

¶48

On 28.02.2023, this Cpurt passed the following interim

¶49

order:

¶50

“Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation mode by the petitioner on 20.12.2022 in accordance with law within d period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis ordef’. 6. . The grievance of the. petitioners is that, . in spite of therebeing an interim order, no orders have been passed on the petitioners’ representation even as on today. However, the 2^^ respondent has produced a copy of the instructions, wherein it is stated that, the 8y.Nos.559/1C2, 569/101, 569/1E2,

¶51

¶52

569/1F2, 570/1A2 were already acquired long back and an award was passed on 14.11.2013 and thereafter, compensation was also paid to the petitioners therein, which is seriously disputed by the petitioners by stating that earlier for laying the bye-pass road some extent of petitioners land was acquired by the RSsB Department, for which, compensation was paid. Thereafter, when the respondent authorities intended to widen the service road connecting from Hanuman Junction bye-pass road to NH6 from 3.8 meters to 7.0 meters, they have acquired some more extent of petitioners’ land, for which, no compensation has been paid.

¶53

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to conduct survey in the presence of the petitioners to clarify that to what extent compensation earlier was paid in pursuance of the award passed in the year 2013 and what is the extent acquired for widening the service road thereafter and with the following

¶54

directions thereto.

¶55

i. The 5“» respondent, with the assistance of the Revenue department, shall conduct a survey to what is the extent acquired for widening the service road belongs, to the petitioners land i.e. Ac. 10.76 cents situated in S.No.569 85 570 of

¶56

• '5

¶57

Velqru Village, :^apulapadTri- Mandal, Krishna Pistrict. This survey shall bp conducted in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives.

¶58

ii. For the purpose of enabling these persons to bp present at the time of the survey, notices shall be given to the pptitioners.

¶59

iii. After due survey, a report shall be submitted to the concerned for payment of compensation left over as per due process. Thip survey shall be completed within a period of eight (§) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

iv. Till such survey is completed, the respondents shall not interfere with thp petitioners’ possession over the subject land, s without following due process of law.

¶61

, e ..Accorciingly,'with the above directions, this writ petition is ' & 4ispose4 of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶63

Petition shall stand closed-

¶64

//TRUE 9QPY//

¶65

SD/- CHITTI JO$€PH ASSISTANT^GISTRAR SECTKJNOFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

The Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat SB uildings, Velagapudi, Guntpr District.

¶68

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Corporate Office Plot No.G-5 and 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.

¶69

The General Manager and Project Director, National Highways Authority of Indio, ProjO9t Irhplementation Unit, Plot No-74, Vanamali Building, Beside N.A.Q. Kalyana Vedika, Commercial Taxes Colony, Gurunanak Nagar Road, Vijayawada - 520 QOS.

¶70

The Collector, Krishna District. 5. The Exeoutive Engineer, Roods an^l buildings Division, Vijayawada. 5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings East Sub-Divisipn, Vijayawada.

¶71

The Revenue Division Officer and Land Aqquisition Authority, Qudivado Division Krishna District.

¶72

The Tahsildar. Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. 9. The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Vijayawada. 10. Tho Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Gannavaram, • Krishna District. 11. Qne CC to M/S. KIRTHI TEJA KQNDAVEETI Advocate [OPUQ] 12. Two CCS to GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 13. One CC to SRI SS VARMA, SC FOR NHAI [OPUC] 14. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradbsh. [OUT] 15. Two CCs to GP FOR panchayat RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 16. Two CD Copies MSR PV

¶73

HIGH COURT DATED:28/03/2023

¶74

ANO-^
5 1 1 AUG 2123

¶75

ORDER

¶76

WP.No.4618 of 2023

¶77

7-0

¶78

DISPOSING OF WP WITHOUT COSTS

Dutta Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dutta Venkateswara Rao 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

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

Syed Abdul Subhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Kareemulla Vs State of Andhra Pradesh