G. Venkatapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. VENKATAPATHI, S/O G. RADHAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 304, VIJAYA SUSHEEL APARTMENTS, AMBA GARDEN EXTENSION, MEHIDIPATNAM, HYDERABAD.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA, GALERU NAGARI SUJALA SRAVATHI, PROJECT II, NGO COLONY, PUTTUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 toto issue appropriate Writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the land admeasuring

¶20

2

¶21

VS,J W.P.No.27643 of 2018

¶22

Ac.8.92 cents in Survey No. 293/2 of Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District for the purpose of Venugopal Sagar Reservoir under Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Project without acquisition under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No. 30/2013) and without payment of any compensation as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and unsustainable and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶24

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 to direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.8.92 cents in Survey No. 293/2 of Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 to vacate the interim order passed in IA.No.1 of 2018 in WP.No. 27643 of 2018, dated 07.08.2019

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)

¶31

2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

VS,J W.P.No.27643 of 2018

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶37

“… to issue appropriate Writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps for dispossession of the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.8.92 cents in Survey No.293/2 of Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District for the purpose of Venugopal Sagar Reservoir under Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Project without acquisition under the provisions of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30/2013)” and without payment of any compensation as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and unsustainable….”

¶38

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.8.92 cents in Sy.No.293/2 of Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. It is stated that the petitioner’s mother purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.1955 from its lawful owners.

¶39

While the things stood thus, the 1^st respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published in the daily newspaper dated 22.04.2012 proposing to acquire the petitioner’s land for construction of the Venugopal Sagar Reservoir under the Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Project. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published through proceedings dated 23.04.2012. However,

¶40

4

¶41

VS,J W.P.No.27643 of 2018

¶42

as the respondents were intending to interfere with the petitioner’s possession without following due process of law and without payment of compensation, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶43

When the writ petition came up for admission on 07.08.2018, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.8.92 cents in Sy.No.293/2 of Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶44

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a counter affidavit stating that, pursuant to the settlement arrived at in the District Level Negotiations Committee meeting held on 20.10.2012, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.3 of 2012, dated 20.10.2012, fixing the total compensation at Rs.68,89,052/-, comprising land value of Rs.60,65,600/-, tree value of Rs.7,94,652/- and structure value of Rs.28,800/-. It is further stated that the entire acquisition proceedings, commencing from the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by the declaration under Section 6 and approval of the P.V. Statement, were undertaken on the basis of the records available with the Tahsildar, Puttur Mandal. It is further stated that, before pronouncement of the award, it was decided to negotiate with the pattadar with a view to passing a consent award and avoiding future litigation. Accordingly, the District Level Negotiations Committee meeting was held on 20.10.2012. During scrutiny of the documents produced by the petitioner, it came to light that originally Smt. Gali Dorasanamma, wife of Radhakrishna,

¶45

5

¶46

VS,J W.P.No.27643 of 2018

¶47

had been granted a Ryotwari Patta by the then Assistant Settlement Officer in S.R.No.447/11(a)/64, dated 31.12.1964, in respect of an extent of Ac.8.99 cents in Sy.No.303 of Thorur Revenue Village. However, the petitioner is claiming compensation in respect of Ac.8.92 cents in Sy.No.293/2 of Nesanur Village, which was notified for acquisition. Therefore, in order to verify the petitioner's claim for compensation, the matter was reported to the District Collector, Chittoor, vide Roc.No.B/19/GNSS/2012, dated 09.01.2013, with regard to the amendment orders passed by the District Collector in Dis.No.2211/91, dated 08.06.1991, which have a direct bearing on the payment of compensation. Accordingly, the matter has been kept in abeyance.

¶48

As seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5, though acquisition proceedings were initiated and an award was passed vide Award No.3 of 2012, dated 20.10.2012, the respondents subsequently decided to negotiate with the pattadar for passing a consent award so as to avoid further litigation. During the course of verification, they found that the title to the subject property required further examination. Therefore, the matter was referred to the District Collector for passing appropriate amendment orders. Accordingly, the matter has been kept in abeyance. Admittedly, till date, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents have neither finalized the acquisition proceedings nor paid compensation to the petitioner and, therefore, they cannot dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.

¶49

6

¶50

VS,J W.P.No.27643 of 2018

¶51

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property until appropriate compensation is paid to the petitioner.

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶55

Dated: 08.07.2026 KGR

G. Venkatapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

G. Venkatapathi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mota Anjamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Venkata Narsi Reddy , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kilari Gopal Rao Vs the State of A.P

Bestha Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Satish Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

Kondeti Ramalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh