Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Vudathu Suresh, Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2025
Vudathu Suresh, Vs Union of IndiaVudathu Suresh, v. Union of India

Dismissed¶42-43

Vudathu Suresh, v. Union of India

Land Acquisition – Compensation – National Highways Act, 1956

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2025WP/8067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Writ Petition No. 8067 of 2023, decided 05.12.2025 by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao (single judge). Petitioner Vudathu Suresh (counsel: Nimmagadda Revathi) challenged the inaction of respondents, particularly respondent No. 4 (Competent Authority LA and Joint Collector), on his representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections and compensation at Rs. 5.00 crores per acre for Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No. 1924/A2, South Addanki Village and Mandal, Bapatla District (erstwhile Prakasam District), acquired for construction of a National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor (Green Field Alignment). NHAI was impleaded as respondent No. 7 by order dated 05.10.2023 in IA No. 2 of 2023. The Court recorded counsel's submission that compensation was paid during pendency and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions. No precedents were cited or discussed; no ratio on the merits of the compensation claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, the grievance of the petitioner having been redressed by the respondent authorities paying the compensation during the pendency of the writ petition. ¶42-43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 4, on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections (by advance notice) and payment of compensation at the prevailing market value of Rs. 5.00 crores per acre with statutory benefits for land acquired for the National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, the National Highways Act 1956 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, the grievance of the petitioner having been redressed by the respondent authorities paying the compensation during the pendency of the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - Compensation - National Highways Act, 1956 - Writ petition under Article 226 by landowner (Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 1924/A2, South Addanki Village, Bapatla District) challenging inaction on his representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections and compensation at prevailing market value of Rs. 5.00 crores per acre with statutory benefits for land acquired for National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor (Green Field Alignment) - During pendency, respondent authorities paid the compensation to the petitioner and the grievance stood redressed - Held, writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

A

1

APHC010156012023

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

[3330]

FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 8067/2023

Between:

VUDATHU SURESH,, S/O. ANJANEYULU, AGED . 45 YEARS, OCC . BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 9-116, NEW PRASANNANJANEYA COMPLEX, ADDANKI 'TOWN AND MANDAL. BAPATLA DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT).

...PETITIONER

AND

UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI.

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT AT BAPATLA. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT).

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA AND JOINT COLLECTOR, B. K. V. GREENFIELD EXPRESSWAY, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT).

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT).

THE TAHSILDAR, ADDANKI MANDAL, BAPATALA DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT).

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIU, AMARAVATHI, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 136A, 106 AND 107, VASANTHA RESIDENCY, SRI

2

LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY COLONY, MANGALAGIRI- 522 503, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED.05.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.02 OF 2023.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of respondents particularly 4th respondent on my representation dt. 24.11.2022, submitted to conduct enquiry into objections submitted by me by issuing advance notice to me and pay compensation to me for the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents out of total extent of Ac.2.00 Cents covered by Survey Nos. 1924/A2 of South Addanki Village and Mandal of Bapatla District (Erstwhile Prakasam District) under acquisition for the purpose of Construction of National High Way Access Controlled Economic Corridor (been Field Alignment) by considering presently prevailing Market Value of Rs.5.00 Crores per acre as Basic Value with all attendant statutory benefits including solacium etc., as per my entitlement, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on them, violative of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. National Highways Act, 1956 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct enquiry into my said objections for the proposed acquisition of my said land and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 to consider and initiate necessary action on petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022, submitted to conduct enquiry into objections submitted by him by issuing advance notice to him and pay compensation to him for the land in an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents out of total extent of Ac.2.00 Cents covered by Survey Nos. 1924/A2 of South Addanki Village and Mandal of Bapatla District (Erstwhile Prakasam District) under acquisition for the purpose of Construction of National High Way Access Controlled Economic Corridor (Green Field Alignment) by considering presently prevailing Market Value of Rs.5.00 Crores per acre as Basic Value with all attendant statutory benefits including solacium etc., as per petitioner entitlement, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

3

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 implead the implead petitioner/proposed Respondent as 7th Respondent in the above Writ Petition and in Interlocutory Applications in the above Writ Petition and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 the Respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition No. 8067/2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following:

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8067 of 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of compensation by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities have paid the compensation to the petitioner, and therefore the cause in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, as the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel has also endorsed the same on the case bundle.

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 05.12.2025 S D P

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 8067 OF 2023

05.12.2025

S D P

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the inaction of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 4, on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections (by advance notice) and payment of compensation at the prevailing market value of Rs. 5.00 crores per acre with statutory benefits for land acquired for the National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, the National Highways Act 1956 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.¶23
The court held
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, the grievance of the petitioner having been redressed by the respondent authorities paying the compensation during the pendency of the writ petition.ratio¶42-43

Statutes considered

7 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶23 Article 14¶23 Article 21¶23 Article 300-A¶23
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151¶25
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013¶23
National Highways Act, 1956National Highways Act, 1956¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Inaction of the respondents, particularly respondent No.4, on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections (with advance notice) and payment of compensation at prevailing market value for Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 1924/A2, South Addanki Village, acquired for construction of National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor (Green Field Alignment); 24.11.2022 is the date of the representation, no order date is stated.¶23
Respondent No. 4 - Competent Authority LA and Joint Collector, B.K.V. Greenfield Expressway · 24.11.2022
Prior proceeding
IA No. 1 of 2023 filed under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and initiate necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 pending disposal of the main writ petition.¶25
Prior proceeding
IA No. 2 of 2023 allowed: National Highways Authority of India impleaded as respondent No. 7 by Court order dated 05.10.2023.¶21
Prior proceeding
IA No. 1 of 2025 filed under Section 151 CPC seeking leave for respondent No. 4 to file counter affidavit in the writ petition.¶30
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities paid the compensation to the petitioner; learned counsel endorsed this on the case bundle, rendering the cause infructuous.¶41

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Vudathu Suresh¶10
Nimmagadda Revathi
respondent
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi¶13
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi¶14
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
The District Collector, Bapatla District at Bapatla¶15
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
The Competent Authority LA and Joint Collector, B.K.V. Greenfield Expressway, Bapatla¶16
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala, Bapatla District¶17
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
The Tahsildar, Addanki Mandal, Bapatla District¶18
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
respondent
National Highways Authority of India, represented by its Project Director, PIU, Amaravathi¶19
GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, GP FOR REVENUE, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

Coram

AI extract

Tarlada Rajasekhar Raoauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 4 Dec 2025 · December
Registered: 29 Mar 2023
Case no.: WP/8067/2023
CNR: APHC010156012023
Topic: Land Acquisition
Bench: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
Disposal: DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

G Rama Chandra Reddy Vs the State of Ap
3 Dec 2025
D Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
3 Dec 2025
Sunitha Upper Primary School Vs Sri Kona Sasidhar
3 Dec 2025
Lanka Rama Siva Reddy Vs Sri. Shashibhushan Kumar
4 Dec 2025
K. Venkat Rao Vs Sri Pradyumna
4 Dec 2025
Smt. Gonela Rama Devi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
7 Dec 2025

Cite this judgement

Vudathu Suresh, v. Union of India, WP/8067/2023 (AP), decided on 4 December 2025.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes7

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 14 · Article 21 · Article 300-A
Code of Civil ProcedureSection 151
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
National Highways Act, 1956National Highways Act, 1956

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Inaction of the respondents, particularly respondent No.4, on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 seeking enquiry into objections (with advance notice) and payment of compensation at prevailing market value for Ac.1.00 cents out of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy. No. 1924/A2, South Addanki Village, acquired for construction of National Highway Access Controlled Economic Corridor (Green Field Alignment); 24.11.2022 is the date of the representation, no order date is stated.Respondent No. 4 - Competent Authority LA and Joint Collector, B.K.V. Greenfield Expressway · 24.11.2022
IA No. 1 of 2023 filed under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and initiate necessary action on the petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2022 pending disposal of the main writ petition.
IA No. 2 of 2023 allowed: National Highways Authority of India impleaded as respondent No. 7 by Court order dated 05.10.2023.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

Parties & counsel