C Sankar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Order dated 10.03.2023 in Writ Petition No.390 of 2020 passed by His Lordship Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao and allow the Writ Petition with costs throughout and pass

¶11

Between:

¶12

C SANKAR REDDY, S/O C. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, MALLAM GUNTA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶13

C.VAMSI VARDHAN REDDY,, S/O. C.SANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MALLARN GUNTA VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

E.VASUNDHARA,, W/O LATE E.PULLAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KAPU STREET, JAMMALAMADUGU, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

...APPELLANT(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTORITY, TIRUPATI,

¶20

2

¶21

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶22

REP.BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN.

¶23

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed with e-auction in pursuance of the notification issued in March, 2023 in respect of the subject land and not to create 3rd party interest on the subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.050 cents in Sy.No.203-3N. Ac.0-90 cents in Sy.No.203-30. Ac.0-51 cents in Sy.No.203-3P. Ac.0-43 cents in Sy.No.203-3Q. Ac.0-44 cents in Sy.No.2033R are totaling Ac.2- 78 cents situated in Vedanthapuram Village, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the Writ Appeal, in the interest of justice, and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶28

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

2.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶32

3.Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA

¶33

WRIT APPEAL NO: 525/2023

¶34

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal against the common order dated 10-03-2023 made in WP No. 350 of 2020 passed by Their Lordship Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao

¶35

Between:

¶36

T MUTHYALA REDDY, S/O T.VENKATESH REDDY (DIED) REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIR T. VENKATAMUNI REDDY, S/O. LATE MUTHYALA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. VEDANTHAPURAM VILLAGE, AVILALA POST, TIRUPATI

¶37

3

¶38

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶39

RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

AND

¶42

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶43

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶44

TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, REP. BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI.

¶45

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶47

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶48

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 pleased to grant leave to file the present writ appeal against the orders in W.P.No. 350/2020 which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by its order dated 10.03.2023, the petitioner being the sole Legal Representative of the writ petitioner, preferring this present appeal and to pass

¶49

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶50

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to sell the subject land and not to create 3rd party interest on the subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0-67 cents in Sy.No.204/7 situated in Vedanthapuram village, Tirupati Rural Mandal„ Tirupati District (erstwhile Chittoor District) pending disposal of the Writ Appeal, and pass

¶51

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶52

1.K KRANTI CHAITANYA

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶54

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶55

2.Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA

¶56

4

¶57

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶58

The Court made the following Common Judgment:

¶59

The present set of appeals relate to acquisition of lands by the Tirupati Urban Development Authority, in the year 1993. The said acquisition was initiated by a notification, dated 15.04.1993, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for Ac.25.26 Cents of land in various survey numbers of Vedantapuram Village. Some of the affected parties, including the appellants herein, had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of various Writ Petitions, challenging the acquisition process.

¶60

The appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2023, who was the owner of Ac.0.67cents of land in Sy.No.204/7, had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.9298 of 1993. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order, dated 28.04.1993, had granted stay of further proceedings. However, this Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 30.06.1994. Thereafter, the said appellant is said to have moved W.A.No.1039 of 1994 and an order of status quo was granted on 20.09.1994. This Writ Appeal also came to be dismissed on 29.02.1996. Thereafter, an award is said to have been passed in relation to the land of the appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2023, on 12.03.1998.

¶61

Similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.374 of 2023, being concerned for their lands admeasuring Ac.2.78 cents of land in Sy.No.203/3N to 203/3R of Vedantapuram Village, had moved W.P.No.6653 of 1993, before the

¶62

5

¶63

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶64

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and had obtained stay of all proceedings on 19.05.1993. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 25.03.1996 and an award is said to have been passed on 12.03.1998.

¶65

The appellants now challenge this process on the following

¶66

grounds:

¶67

1. No award was passed on 12.03.1998.

¶68

1. The award, that is said to have been passed, is a back-dated award, solely for the purpose of ensuring that it is within the limitation of two years from the date of declaration, issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.

¶69

1. The award was never approved by the District Collector, which is a mandatory requirement for the passing of an award.

¶70

The first ground, that no award had been passed, cannot be

¶71

accepted, as the consent award was challenged before this Court.

¶72

The second ground of delay in passing the award is raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, stating that the correspondence between the various officials of the Revenue Department and the Tirupati Urban Development Authority show that the award had not been passed on 12.03.1998. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a file note bearing No. Roc.No.307/G/92, which states as follows:

¶73

6

¶74

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶75

Roc.No.307/G/92

¶76

Submitted:

¶77

This is to submit that the LAO in his letter dated 06.03.1998 informed that the award was approved by the District Collector, Chittoor and requested to place an amount of Rs.18,89,811/towards compensation amount for the balance of lands of 11.96 acres in Vedantapuram Village.

¶78

Submitted for perusal and orders

¶79

Sd/Sd/Sd/Sd/11.03.98 12.03.98 16.03.98 We may give after G1 APO PO Govt. Stay is vacated 17.03.98

¶80

Submitted:

¶81

Draft letter to the LAO TUDA put up may please be approved.

¶82

Submitted:

¶83

This is to submit that

¶84

Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition

¶85

The learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid noting,

¶86

submits that the signatures of the PO , dated 16.03.1998, would automatically

¶87

7

¶88

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶89

demonstrate that the award had not yet been passed by 19.03.1998 and consequently, the award should be treated as back-dated.

¶90

The learned counsel for the appellants raised the third ground of non-availability of the approval of the District Collector, on the ground that the material produced by the respondents does not demonstrate any approval being given by the District Collector and also on the ground that the award does not reflect the factum of the said approval.

¶91

Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 21.01.2003, in W.P.No.17076 of 2000 and batch, which included W.P.No.17077 of 2000, which was filed in W.A.No.525 of 2023 and W.P.No.17110 of 2000, which was filed by the petitioners, including the appellant in W.A.No.374 of 2023. The learned counsel would contend that the issues which are presently before this Court, had been raised before the learned Single Judge and had been rejected. He would further submit that the Writ Appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, bearing W.A.No.317 of 2003 and batch, had been rejected and the Division Bench had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to W.P.No.3131 of 2012, dated 15.02.2012, filed by 9 petitioners, including the appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2023. In this Judgment, the petitioners sought to contend that certain issues

¶92

8

¶93

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶94

could not be raised in the earlier rounds of litigation. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed by virtue of the above said order. It may also be noted that the order of the Division Bench, in W.A.No.317 of 2003 and batch had been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by way of S.L.P.No.3972 of 2007, and the same had been dismissed on 09.03.2007.

¶95

The learned counsel would also contend that both the Writ Petitions against which the present Writ Appeals had been filed, were also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of an order, dated 10.03.2023, wherein, the learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the issues raised by the appellants had already been decided in the earlier rounds of litigation and that the principles of res judicata would be applicable.

¶96

The learned counsel has also stated that the appellants are guilty of suppressing the fact as the earlier rounds of litigation were suppressed and there is no mention of the earlier rounds of litigation in the affidavits filed in the Writ Petitions against which the present Writ Appeals had been filed.

¶97

It also appears that the petitioners therein sought to raise additional grounds of applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which also came to be dismissed.

¶98

A perusal of the said judgment makes it clear that the issues raised before this Court, in the present set of appeals, had already been

¶99

9

¶100

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶101

raised and rejected before the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as well as before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶102

We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken in the earlier judgments. Apart from this, there is a clear bar on the principle of res judicata, for these issues to be agitated again.

¶103

Sri Kranthi Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2023, contends that the note which has been extracted above had not been brought to the notice of either the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh or before the learned Single Judge hearing W.P.Nos.350 & 390 of 2023.

¶104

Though these appeals require to be dismissed , it would be necessary to address the issues of whether the note extracted above, makes any difference to the case.

¶105

A reading of the note would show that a statement has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer that the approval of the District Collector, for the draft award had been obtained prior to 06.03.1998. This note which has been produced by the appellants themselves makes it amply clear that there was an approval of the award of the District Collector, prior to 06.03.1998 itself. Further, the note is in relation to deposit of compensation

¶106

10

¶107

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.Nos.374 & 525 of 2023

¶108

amount to be paid out to the affected parties, including the appellants herein. In such circumstances, the fact that there are signatures on the note after 12.03.1998 would make no difference for ascertaining whether the award has been back-dated or not. In fact, this note would not have any relevance for deciding this issue.

¶109

Before parting with these Writ Appeals, it is necessary to note that the present proceedings are infact abusive of the process of this Court. However, a lenient view is being taken and no costs are being levied on the appellants.

¶110