Dismissed

Mamidi Yella Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Apr 2023WP(PIL)/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition in the nature of PIL seeking directions to withhold land acquisition compensation for non-existent structures. The Court held the PIL was not maintainable given existence of individual remedies for unofficial respondents and a pending SLP by the State, and overruled such matters to be adjudicated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was dismissed as unsubstantial and not maintainable.

Mamidi Yella Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.46 of 2023

¶4

Mamidi Yella Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, aged about 49 years, Occ: Social Worker, R/o. Door No.38/156, Ramanjaneyapuram, Sagar Colony, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, and others

¶8

… Respondents ORDER (ORAL)

¶9

Dt.18.04.2023

¶10

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶11

This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been preferred seeking direction to respondents 1 to 6 not to pay land acquisition compensation to the unofficial respondents 7 to 59 for the non-existent structures which were not shown in the Joint Inspection Report Letter No.7M dated 21.11.2006 as well as the draft declaration dated 17.12.2007 of the 3^rd respondent pertaining to Sy.No.607/1 to 607/7 and 596/3 situated at Malinenipatnam village of Gollapalli, Atluri Mandal, YSR Kadapa District based on Ref.No.A1/159/2020 of the 2^nd respondent dated 22.07.2021.

¶12

2 HCJ & NJS,J W.P. (PIL) No.46 of 2023

¶13

On a bare perusal of the facts stated in the writ affidavit, it appears; the unofficial respondents have preferred writ petitions from time to time, i.e. W.P.No.2658 of 2007, W.P.No.16843 of 2007, W.P.No.4705 of 2008, and W.P.No.2807 of 2009. It also refers to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.14820 of 2009 dated 17.07.2009 against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.05.2009 in W.A.No.632 of 2009. It is also mentioned in the writ petition that land acquisition award has already been passed and, thereafter, writ petition was preferred by the unofficial respondents claiming compensation for the structures and, at present, C.C.No.788 of 2009 for implementation of the order passed in WPMP No.6399 of 2009 in W.P.No.4705 of 2008, is pending before this Court.

¶14

In view of the above facts disclosed in the affidavit, the present writ petition in the nature of public interest seeking directions, which may be contrary to the orders passed by this Court in different petitions from time to time, is not maintainable. When the unofficial respondents are seeking legal remedy by filing writ petitions and the officials of the State are defending their action, public interest litigation is not maintainable. Mere fact that official respondents have preferred S.L.P., referred above at an earlier point of time, demonstrates that the State Government is protecting its interest. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to entertain this public interest litigation. It is otherwise also not maintainable for the reason that

¶15

HCJ & NJS,J W.P. (PIL) No.46 of 2023

¶16

¶17

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a complete code in itself and any person aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation can pray for reference to the civil court under Section 18 thereof, wherein parties would be given opportunity of hearing and the competent judicial authority will pass orders in accordance with law, which is again open to challenge before this Court.

¶18

The writ petition being unsubstantial deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶22

MRR

Mamidi Yella Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Yella Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reddy Enterprises Vs the Union of India

Abdul Khader Mohammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs B Venkateswarullu

Shaik Yunus Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. C.Gopal Reddy and Co., Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Badamneni Srinivasa Rao Vs the Union of India