Dismissed

Geega Satyanarayana, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Aug 2023WP/7726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner challenging the disbursement of land acquisition compensation awarded to another party. The Court held there were no merits as the Revenue Authority had already rejected the petitioner's claim and definitively recognized the other party as entitled to compensation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for issuing writ of mandamus for declaration and consequential directions to disburse compensation to petitioner was not granted.

Geega Satyanarayana, Vs the State of Ap — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.7726 OF 2019

¶2

Between:

¶3

Geega Satyanarayana, S/o Pothuraju, Aged about 40 years, Agriculture, Durapadu Village, Also residing in Cheeravalli Village, Kukunoor Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and four others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Irrigation Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4 : GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri P.Narahari Babu

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶11

“…issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in

¶12

Page 2 of 9

¶13

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶14

the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in making efforts to disburse the compensation amount to respondent No.5 herein for my land situated in S.No.56 admeasuring Ac.8.01 gts at Cheeravelli Village of Kuknoor Mandal, West Godavari District, which is acquired for Polvaram Project ignoring my claim to the said land as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and issue a consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 4 herein not to pay compensation to the respondent No.5 herein for our above said land and pay compensation to me for my above land and pass such other order or further orders…”

¶15

Averments in affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner and one Geega Veeraiah and one G.Babu Rao are absolute owners and possessors of land of an extent of Ac.8.01 gts in Sy.No.56. Petitioner and his brother succeeded to the said property from their grandfather by name Geega Pothappa. Said Geega Pothappa blessed with two sons and two daughters. Respondent No.5 is son-in-law of said Geega Pothappa. After death of said Geega Pothappa, name of Geega Subbaiah, son of Geega Pothappa was entered as pattedar and occupant of subject land till 1955-58. Subsequently, name of Bitta Yerraiah who is father of respondent No.5 was entered as pattedar in respect of subject land. Respondent No.5 worked in the office of Mandal Revenue

¶16

Page 3 of 9

¶17

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶18

Officer, Kurnool and taking advantage of the same, he got entered his fathers’ name. Respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Special Agent Government (Mobile Court, Badrachalam).

¶19

(a) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has proposed to acquire lands in Cheeravelli Village, including the land referred to supra . A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, 30 of 2013 was published in the District Gazette on 21.06.2016. Declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette in the month of September, 2016. In preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, name of respondent No.5 was shown as the owner of the property, however, in the possessor column, name of one Geega Pothuraju is shown. In declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, respondent No.5 name was shown as pattedar and names of the petitioner and his father was shown, in the column of enjoyer and cultivator and in the extent column, it was shown as dispute. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer and SubCollector, Kukunoor, West Godavari District passed Award No.07/2016-17 dated 06.03.2016.

¶20

Page 4 of 9

¶21

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶22

(b) The Land Acquisition Officer determined the

¶23

compensation amount as Rs.80,54,323/-. Award was passed in the name of respondent No.5. Petitioner filed W.P.No.148 of 2017, to declare the action of Land Acquisition Officer and SubCollector, in not referring the matter to the authority under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “The Act”). The said writ petition was disposed of on 02.08.2017. After disposal of the said writ petition, respondent No.3 issued notice vide Ref.No.90/2016, dated 31.01.2019, to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.5. After receipt of notices, before the enquiry was concluded, petitioner filed the above writ petition directing the respondents not to disburse the amount in favour of respondent No.5.

¶24

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.3 deposed to the counter affidavit. It was contended inter-alia , that an amount of Rs.80,54,323/- was determined as compensation in respect of land of an extent of Ac.8.01 gts in Sy.No.56. Petitioner filed the above writ petition and in view of interim order passed by this Court, compensation

¶25

Page 5 of 9

¶26

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶27

was not paid either to the petitioner or to the respondent No.5. Based on the documentary proof of ownership, respondent No.5 is notified as the pattadar in the Award vide Ref.No.E125930/2016/R&R, dated 30.09.2016. Petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents to claim ownership and hence, his claim is rejected in the award. The then Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunoor issued notices to the petitioner as well as respondent and conducted enquiry and thereafter issued proceedings vide Roc.No.96/2016, dated 31.12.2018. Upheld the claim of respondent No.5 against the petitioner for ownership of the land in respect of Ac.8.01 gts in Sy.No.56.

¶28

(a) In view of dispute regarding the ownership between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the authority will deposit the compensation amount before the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority and Resettlement Authority. Petitioner and one Geega Arjun have not produced documentary evidence, except the old adangal copies and tax receipts. Respondent No.5 filed Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palavancha. The

¶29

Page 6 of 9

¶30

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶31

Special Assistant Agent & Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, set aside the claim of the petitioner in O.S.No.4 of 2013.

¶32

Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit claiming the right over the property acquired and further contended that the petitioner has no valid documents to sustain his claim.

¶33

Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents as per the averments made in the affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 reiterated the contents as per the averments made in the counter affidavit.

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the Award was passed on 06.03.2016. The amount is not disbursed either to the petitioner or to the respondent No.5.

¶36

Page 7 of 9

¶37

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶38

As seen from the pleadings and material papers filed along with the writ petition, there is no dispute that an extent of Ac.8.01 gts in Sy.No.56 of Cheeravelli Village, Kukunoor Mandal, West Godavari District, was acquired. Award No.07/2016-17 dated 06.03.2016 was passed and the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation amount as Rs.80,54,323/-. In the award, name of respondent No.5 is shown.

¶39

Petitioner filed W.P.No.148 of 2017, to direct the respondent No.3 to refer the matter to the Authority under Section 64 of the Act and the same was disposed of on 02.08.2017. After disposal of said writ petition, the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunoor vide proceedings in Roc.No.96/2016, dated 31.12.2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner and one Geega Arjun. Though the order is dated 31.12.2018, it was singed by the officer on 08.01.2019. The present writ petition was filed on 20.06.2019. Thus, by the date of ate of filing writ petition respondent No.3 concluded that respondent No.5 is entitled for compensation. In fact, 3^rd respondent rejected the claim of petitioners. However, the said proceedings were not challenged before appropriate court.

¶40

Page 8 of 9

¶41

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶42

The prayer sought in the writ petition as stated supra , is not to disburse the amount in favour of respondent No.5. However, in view of the proceedings of respondent No.3 in Roc.No.96/2016, dated 31.12.2018 and signed by the officer on 08.01.2019 stating that respondent No.5 is entitled to compensation. Since the respondent No.3 determined that respondent No.5 is entitled to compensation, this court doesn’t find any merits in the writ petition and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Roc.No.96/2016, dated 31.12.2018, before the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶45

________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶46

Date : 30.08.2023 TVN

¶47

Page 9 of 9

¶48

SRS, J W.P.No.7726 of 2019

¶49

129