Murala Rathnaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010474952025

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25029/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

MURALA RATHNAIAH, S/O.VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶9

DASARI BUJJAMMA, W/O.PULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT.

¶10

SD. MASUM SAHEB, S/O.MASTHAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. SRAMIKANAGAR, KOTHURU, NEILORE RURAL MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶11

SUREPAILI NARAYANAMMA, W/O.PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OC-AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT

¶12

ANDELA NARAYANAMMA, D/O.LATE K.ANASUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANUGOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶13

BANDI GANGA BHAVANI,, W/O.LATE SANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PENCHALAKONA ROAD, SYDADUPALLI VILLAGE, RAPURU MANDAL, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

KETHA ANKI REDDY, S/O.LATE K.VENKU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULURE, R/O.KAPU STREET, PUTHURU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

SD. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.LATE SD KALESHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULURE, R/O.SRAMIKANAGAR, KOTHURU VILLAGE, NEIIORE RURAL MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶16

DASARI PADMAMMA, W/O.LATE CHENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULURE, R/O.OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

GOTHANN PENCHALAMMA, W/O.VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

¶18

2

¶19

R/O.KOTITHEERTHAM VILLAGE, CHEJARLA MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶20

GANTALA SAMPOORNAMMA,, W/O.NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶21

TODETI NARAYANAMMA, TODETI NARAYANAMMA, W/O.PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.VENKATARAMARAJU PETA, KALUVOI MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶22

GALIBOINA AKKAMMA, W/O.VENGAIAH, AGED AGALIBOINA AKKAMMA,OUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.KETHUGUNTA VILLAGE, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶23

KONDA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O.LATE KONDA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

¶24

KONDA RATHNAIAH, KONDA RATHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,

¶25

KONDA AVULAIAH, S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, (PETITIONER 14 TO 16 ARE RESIDING IN OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NEIIORE DISTRIC

¶26

SUREPALLI PENCHALAIAH, S/O.CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAYAPALLI VILLAGE, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶27

...PETITIONER(S)

¶28

AND

¶29

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶30

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶31

THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, MULAPETA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶32

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, RAPUR AT NELLORE UNIT, MULAPETA, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P.

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶34

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not disposing the 28-A Applications dt.2904-2024 made by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation

¶35

3

¶36

to their acquired lands, trees including structures on the Award amount in Award No. 125/1989-90 dt.29-11-1989 as enhanced in .A.O.P. No.8/2017 dt.31-01-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt. 29- 04-2024 made by the petitioners by re-determining the compensation to the acquired lands, trees including structures in terms of the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P. No.8/2017 dt. 31-01-2024 pending before the respondent forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶37

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 direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt. 29-04-2024 made by the petitioners by redetermining the compensation to the acquired lands, trees including structures in terms of the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P. No.8/2017 dt. 31-01-2024 pending Writ Petition in this Honble Court and pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶39

1.S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶42

2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

¶43

4

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25029 of 2025

¶45

ORDER:-

¶46

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶47

“… to issue Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not disposing the 28-A Applications dt.2904-2024 made by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation to their acquired lands, trees including structures on the Award amount in Award No.125/1989-90 dt.29-11-1989 as enhanced in L.A.O.P. No.8/2017 dt.31-01-2024 is as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of 28-A Applications dt. 29-04-2024 made by the petitioners by re-determining the compensation to the acquired lands, trees including structures in terms of the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P. No.8/2017 dt.31-01-2024 pending before the 3^rd respondent forthwith and pass such other order.…”

¶48

Petitioners lands were acquired by respondent Nos.3 and 4,

¶49

along with tress and structures attached thereon, in the year 1997 for the purpose of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. Petitioners have not sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter for short referred as „the Act‟), against the Award No.125/1989-90 and the compensation was received on protest and some of the awardees have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was registered as L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2017, on the file learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, and the petitioners were legally advised to avail the remedy to file an application under Section 28A of the Act, for re-determination of compensation to the

¶50

5

¶51

acquired land, structures, including trees, subject to the result of the reference against Award No.125/1989 dated 29.11.1989 by the reference Court.

¶52

Thereafter, petitioners have filed applications dated 29.04.2024 accordingly under Section 28A of the Act, before the respondent No.4The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) seeking for redetermination of compensation on par with the other awardees, whose compensation has been enhanced in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2017 dated 31.01.2024. The claimants in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2017 have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.2201 of 2025. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 01.07.2025 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to deposit the enhanced compensation, as enhanced in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2017, within a period of three months and the said order attained finality and hence, the 4^th respondent be directed to dispose the applications dated 29.04.2024 filed under section 28A of the Act and to direct to enhance the compensation, as there is no impediment for respondents. Therefore, present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents to dispose of applications dated 29.04.2024 filed under section 28-A of the Act.

¶53

Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶54

6

¶55

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the petitioners have filed applications dated 29.04.2024, under Section 28A of the Act before respondent No.4-The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), requesting a re-determination of compensation to be consistent with other awardees whose compensation was increased in L.A.O.P. No.8 of 2017 dated 31.01.2024. The learned counsel further stated that the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2017 have filed W.P.No.2201 of 2025 in this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court issued an order on 01.07.2025, disposing of that writ petition by directing the respondents therein to deposit the enhanced compensation within three months and the said order had attained finality. Therefore, learned counsel requests that the 4^th respondent be directed to address the applications filed under Section 28A of the Act and to enhance the compensation.

¶56

Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not oppose the request made by the writ petitioners significantly and would request this Court to grant reasonable time to address the petitioners applications.

¶57

Section 28A [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 19 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984)] is extracted for effective disposal of the writ petition:

¶58

“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court:

¶59

(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the

¶60

7

¶61

persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:

¶62

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

¶63

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

¶64

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18…”

¶65

The Hon‟ble Apex court in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi¹ ,

¶66

answering the reference held in the following:

¶67

“Coming to the second question for reference the receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collectors with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner's application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act.”

¶68

1 (2002) 7 SCC 273

¶69

8

¶70

Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to examine and address the applications dated 29.04.2024, filed by petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view of the order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred supra and the order of this Court in W.P.No.2201 of 2025 and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

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

¶72

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶73

Date: 07.10.2025 KBN

Murala Rathnaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murala Rathnaiah v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naradasu Banaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shamabegum Vs the State of Ap

Seelam Santha Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Saidamma @ Saida Bi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Jampani Sreenivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk. Masum Saheb, Vs The State of A.P