Dismissed

Sura Gangi Reddy v. Rendla Brahma Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2024WA/818/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to file a writ appeal challenging a prior order directing payment of compensation for submerged structures was denied. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate fraud or show how their interests were affected by the prior inspection report.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sura Gangi Reddy Vs Rendla Brahma Reddy — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

I.A.NO.1 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

WRIT APPEAL No.818 of 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sura Gangi Reddy, S/o.China Gangi Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chavatapalli Village, Muttukuru Post, Atluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

…Applicant/Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

Rendla Brahma Reddy, S/o.China Subba Reddy, Aged 69 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Malinenipatnam Colony, Bhakarapet Village, Siddavatam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District & 4 others.

¶13

…Respondents Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant :SriD.S.N.V. Prasad Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 :Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 9 : G.P for Land Acquisition

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Dt:. 01.04.2024

¶16

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

¶17

Heard Sri D.S.N.V. Prasad Babu, learned counsel

¶18

appearing for the Applicant/Appellant, Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy,

¶19

¶20

learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9.

¶21

The respondents 1 to 5 claiming non-payment of compensation for their structures which had been submerged on account of an Irrigation Project, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.1650 of 2014. The contention of the said respondents was that the lands owned by them in Sy.No.339/2 of Malinenipatnam Village, Atluru Mandal, Cuddapah District had been submerged on account of the construction of the Somasila project. On account of this submergence, the lands of the respondents had been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the award passed in this regard, on 04.09.1995, did not include compensation for the structures in the acquired area, belonging to the present writ petitioners and they had submitted various representations for payment of compensation in this regard. As these representations were not being considered, the respondents approached this Court, by way of the above writ petition contending that the existence of the structures is proved and demonstrated by the reports prepared after physical inspection of the property, by the official respondents.

¶22

¶23

A learned Single Judge of this Court after considering these issues and after perusing a Joint Inspection Report dated 26.11.1995, produced by the official respondents, had allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the official respondents to give effect to the Inspection Report dated 26.11.1995 and to assess and pay compensation in terms of the said assessment made with other claimants in a Supplementary Award bearing No.25 of 1999 dated 10.06.1999.

¶24

The applicant/appellant herein, who is a 3^rd party to the entire case has sought leave to file the present Writ Appeal. It is the case of the applicant/appellant that the structures claimed by the private respondents belong to other beneficiaries who have passed away and that the claims of the private respondents are not permissible and any payment made to them would amount to illegal payment of public money to such private respondents.

¶25

Sri D.S.N.V. Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant would contend that this is a case of fraud and any person can approach the Court to show the said fraud and relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors¹ .

¶26

1 (2007) 4 SCC 221

¶27

¶28

HCJ&RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.818 of 2023

¶29

A perusal of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., would show that the said Judgment had elucidated the principle that fraud vitiates everything and any judgment, even that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, which has been obtained by practicing or playing fraud is vitiated and would have to be treated as non est by every Court, superior or inferior. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are binding on this Court and in any event are an exposition of the settled principle that fraud vitiates everything. However, the principle set out in this Judgment would have to be applied only where a fraud has been demonstrated.

¶30

A perusal of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that the learned Single Judge on the requisition of the petitioners had directed the respondents to produce a Joint Inspection Report which was being relied upon by the private respondents. This report dated 26.11.1995 was produced by the official respondents and the learned Single Judge on the basis of this report had held that structures belonging to the private respondents had not been taken into account for calculating the compensation payable to the private respondents. On this basis, he had allowed the writ petition.

¶31

¶32

HCJ&RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.818 of 2023

¶33

The applicant/appellant herein, except stating that the said Joint Inspection Report dated 26.11.1995 had suddenly surfaced before the writ Court, has not explained as to how this report is not a genuine report nor has he placed any material placed before this Court to arrive at any such conclusion. Apart from this, the applicant/appellant has not explained as to how his interests are affected. It may also be noticed that the applicant/appellant had earlier filed W.P.(PIL).No.108 of 2023 for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1650 of 2014 and had withdrawn the same without seeking any further leave to challenge the said order. For all the aforesaid reasons, leave to file an appeal cannot be granted.

¶34

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is dismissed and consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed for condonation of delay and W.A.No.818 of 2023 stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶37

RJS

¶38

¶39

HCJ&RRR,J I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.A.818 of 2023

¶40

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶41