Disposed

M Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/4936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought directions to the District Collector to comply with objections in a land acquisition compensation reference. The court disposed of the petition directing the Collector to comply with the objections and resubmit records to the LARR Authority within two months.

What did the court decide?

District Collector directed to comply with objections and resubmit record vide Rc.No.A/16/20107 dated 18.09.2017 to respondent No.5 within two months; no order as to costs.

M Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

-T V

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI -

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4936 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

M Venkateswara Rao, S/o Uma Maheswara Rao, Aged about 51 years, R/o Palasamudram, Gorantia Mandalam, Sri Satya Sai District.

? *

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶14

The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional officer cum Land Acquisition officer, Pendugonda, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶16

The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Rep by its Zonal Manager, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶17

The Registrar, The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tirupathi Region, Tirupathi District.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Gorantala Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

¶22

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶23

^ be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action of the respondent 2nd in not taking any action in proceedings Roc. A/16/20107 Dated 18-09-2017 for omissions, and sending records to 5th for determination of enhancement of compensation as per law is illegal, arbitrary and consequently^directthe 2nd Respondent to send the proposal after duly doing omissions and sending the records to the 5th Respondent for determination of enhanced compensation vide letter A/16/20107 Dated 18-09-2017.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 2nd Respondent to send the proposal after duly doing omissions and sending the records to the 5th Respondent for determination of enhanced compensation vide letter A/16/20107 Dated 1809-2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. K SRINIVAS

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI M.J. UGRANARASIMHA, SC FOR

¶29

APIIC

¶30

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.4936 OF 2024

¶34

M.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Uma Maheswara Rao, Aged about 51 years, R/o Palasamudram, Gorantia Mandalam, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶35

... Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and five others.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Srinivas

¶40

Counsel for respondents : GP for Land Acquisition and^Sri J.Ugranarasimha, SC for R-4.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and Sri J.Ugranarasimha,^learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶43

Page 2 of 5

¶44

SRS, J WP No.4936/2024

¶45

The writ petition is filed to declare the inaction^ofrespondent No.2 in taking steps, pursuant to proceedings Roc.A/16/20107, dated 18.09.2017, and sending records to respondent No.5 for determination of compensation, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶46

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 is not initiated the process for acquisition^ofthe land. After verification of the land preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and^Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement^Act,2013(for short “the Act”) was issued on 13.10.2015. The petitioner’s^landof an extent of Ac.11-15 cents in Sy.No.245-1A, Ac.4-60 cents in Sy.No.236-2B was acquired. Respondent No.3 fixed the market value at Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre vide Award No.3/2015-16^dated 26.12.2015. The petitioner received the amount under^protest.

¶47

(b) The petitioner filed W.P.No.25213 of 2016 to direct respondent No.2 - District Collector, Anantapur to^{refertheAward} under Section 64 of the Act and the said writ petition^isdisposedof directing respondent No.2 to refer the matter under^{Section64ofthe} Act to the competent authorities within a period of^two(2)weeks.

Page 3 of 5

SRSJ WP No.4936/2024

(c) Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.2 referred^the matter under Section 64 of the Act to the authority^and the then District Collector issued proceedings dated 27.07.2017 to the concern authority for taking action. Further, respondent^No.5issued proceedings vide Roc.A/16/20107 dated 18.09.2017. The objections pointed out by the authority were not complied with by respondent No.2. Hence, the writ petition.

¶52

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on instructions would submit that initially the District Collector, Anantapuramu referred the matter to the Authority. After it was returned. Districts were bifurcated and hence, respondent No.2District Collector Sri Satya Sai District, addressed^{lettertotheDistrict} Collector, Anantapuramu vide Rc. No. Lands/477/2024 dated 19.04.2024 to forward the corresponding file regarding Rc.No.A/16/20107, dated 18.09.2017. He would submit^thatsince respondent No.2 received the record, the objections will be complied with.

¶53

In view of the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition coupled with the letter addressed by respondent No.2 to the District Collector, Anantapuramu,^theWrit

¶54

Page 4 of 5

¶55

SRS,J WP No.4936/2024

¶56

¶57

Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 - District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District to comply with the objections and resubmit the record vide Rc.No.A/16/20107 dated 18.09.2017 to respondent No.5 - the Registrar, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority, Tirupati Region, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs.

¶58

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

¶59

SDI- B.PRASAD RAO //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO t^^FICER

¶60

SECTIO

¶61

To,

¶62

The Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶63

The District Collector, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶64

The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition officer, Pendugonda, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶65

The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶66

The Registrar, The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Tirupathi Region, Tirupathi District.

¶67

¶68

The Tahsildar, Gorantala Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District.

¶69

One CC to SRI. K SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CCs to GP for LAND ACQUISITION, High Court of^Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

One CC to SRI J UGRA NARASIMHA, SC FOR APIIC [OPUC]

¶72

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

PATED:24/04/2024

■M n

ORDER

WP.No.4936 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M 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

Madiga Pedda Pullamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Allampalli Supriya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kusam Ramireddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Anjanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Jayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothula Subba Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh