Y. Jaganadha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3333]

¶2

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading :

¶3

APHC010086542018

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 3841/2018

¶10

Between:

¶11

Y. JAGANADHA RAO, S/O PAIDAYYA, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶12

YELLABELLI SIMHACHALAM ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P8 TO P10, S/O PAIDAYYA, AGED 55 YEARS, RIO KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶13

KARANAM ACHIBABU,, S/O APPALA5WAMY, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶14

KARANAM TATARAO,, S/O TATHALU, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI HANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶15

VANAM DUGGUNAIDU,, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶16

PYALA RAMANAMMA,, W/O VARAHALU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RIO KODURU VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL,

¶17

2

¶18

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶19

VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶20

LALAM DEMUDAMMA,, W/O LATE APPARAO, AGED 61 YEARS. OCC. AGRUCULTURE, RIO KODURU VILLAGE. ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

¶21

YELLABILLI KANTHAMMA,, W/O YELLABILLI SIMHACHALAN (LATE) R/O D.NO.36-94-260, AMBEDKAR STREET, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶22

PULIPAKA HYMAVATHI, W/O P. UDAY KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, NTPC DEEPANJALI NAGAR, SIMHADRI, CHIPURUPALLI EAST, PARAVADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶23

NELLI APARNA KUMARI, W/O NELLI DHARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 36-94-260, AMBEDKAR STREET, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶24

LALAM NARASINGA RAO, S/O APPA RAO,, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PYLAVANI PALEM, KODUR POST, ANKAPALLI MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶25

LALAM NOOKA RAJU, S/O APPA RAO,, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PYLAVANI PALEM, KODUR POST, ANKAPALLI MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶26

LALAM NAIDU, S/O APPA RAO,, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PYLAVANI PALEM, KODUR POST, ANKAPALLI MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶27

LALAM SANYASI NAIDU, S/O APPA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PYLAVANI PALEM, KODUR POST, ANKAPALLI MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶28

DHARMIREDDY LAKSHMI, W/O APPA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O SEZ COLONY, PUDI VILLAGE, RAHEMBELLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. PETITIONER NOS.8 TO 10, 11 TO 15 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 2ND AND 7TH PETITIONERS AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.25.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 AND 03 OF 2025 RESPECTIVELY.

¶29

3

¶30

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶31

...PETITIONER(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

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

¶34

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶35

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI REVENUE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶36

THE TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶37

THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶39

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 to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in resuming the petitioners' lands situated in Sy. Nos. 371/1 (Ac.2.92 cents), 370/2 (Ac.2.77 cents), 374/2 (Ac.3.16 cents), 376/2 (Ac.5.00 cents), 354/2 and 3 (Ac.4.30 cents), 354/1 and 3 (Ac. 4.30 cents), 356/2 (Ac. 4.57 cents) respectively of Koduru Revenue Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by paying exgratia alone is arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against principles of natural justice and violative of Fundamental Rights apart from Article 300-A of Constitution of India and the judgment larger bench of this Hon'ble court reported in 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the petitioners' lands and to pass

¶40

4

¶41

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶42

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶43

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 respondent authorities to pass appropriate order on representations dated 04.06.2016, 06.11.2017 made by the petitioners for payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass

¶44

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶45

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 may be pleased to grant leave to file the rejoinder in the above writ petition and to pass

¶46

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶47

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 bring the Proposed Petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No.2 in the above writ petition W.P. No. 3841 of 2018 and in all other miscellaneous petitions therein

¶48

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶49

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 bring the Proposed Petitioners herein as the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No.7 in the above writ petition W.P. No. 3841 of 2018 and in all other miscellaneous petitions therein

¶50

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶51

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 May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/ Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition No. 3841 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶52

5

¶53

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶55

1.SUDEEPTHI POTLURI

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)

¶58

2.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

¶59

The Court made the following:

6

VS,J

W.P.No.3841 of 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:

¶65

“…to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in resuming the petitioners' lands situated in Sy. Nos. 371/1 (Ac.2.92 cents), 370/2 (Ac.2.77 cents), 374/2 (Ac.3.16 cents), 376/2 (Ac.5.00 cents), 354/2 and 3 (Ac.4.30 cents), 354/1 and 3 (Ac. 4.30 cents), 356/2 (Ac. 4.57 cents) respectively of Koduru Revenue Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by paying exgratia alone is arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against principles of natural justice and violative of Fundamental Rights apart from Article 300-A of Constitution of India and the judgment larger bench of this Hon'ble court reported in 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the petitioners' lands and to pass…”

¶66

2. The petitioners herein claim to be absolute owners and

¶67

possessors of agricultural lands situated in Sy.Nos.371/1 (Acs.2.92 cents), 370/2 (Acs.2.77 cents), 374/2 (Acs.3.16 cents), 376/2 (Acs.5.00 cents), 354/2 and 3 (Acs.4.30 cents), 354/1 and 3 (Acs.4.30 cents), 356/2 (Acs.4.57 cents) of Koduru revenue village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district. The said lands were assigned by the then

¶68

7

¶69

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶70

Tahsildar in the year 1979 and ever since, the petitioners and their ancestors were in possession of the same.

¶71

While the matter stood thus, the 5^th respondent requested the 1^st respondent for allotment of Government land to an extent of Acs.418.22 cents of Koduru Revenue village, Anakapalli mandal for the purpose of establishing industrial park, which includes the lands of the petitioners as well. Pursuant to the aforesaid request, the respondents have resumed the land vide orders dated 14.07.2016 by merely paying exgratia to the petitioners without initiating proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶72

The 3^rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assgn.I) department, dated 14.09.2012 issued guidelines to be followed for the purpose of land pooling. Keeping in view the same, pursuant to request made by the 5^th respondent, instructions were issued to revenue officials to resume the assigned lands after duly paying compensation to D.Form pattadars @100% market value and 30% solatium; 100% market value as exgratia for encroachers. Therefore, all the lands involved in the alignment of Industrial park in Koduru village were inspected and subsequently, list of persons whose lands are involved in the alignment was published in the

8

VS,J

W.P.No.3841 of 2018

village and accordingly, compensation was paid to the said persons as per their eligibility. It is stated that petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are only identified as assignees and petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 are encroachers of the subject lands. As such, compensation was paid according to guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assgn.I) department, dated 14.09.2012 to petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. The petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 were paid exgratia basing on their possession. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶77

Heard Mrs. P. Sudeepthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶78

Perused the entire material available on record. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. Pursuant to a request made by the 5^th respondent, the respondent authorities were admittedly instructed by the 1^st respondent to resume the assigned lands, encroached Government lands after duly paying compensation to D.Form pattadars @100% marker value and 30% solatium and only 100% market value as ex-gratia to encroachers. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent has enquired into the matter and reported that petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are only the assignees and that petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 are encroachers of the subject lands.

9

VS,J

W.P.No.3841 of 2018

The said fact was seriously objected by learned counsel for the petitioners; she brought to the notice of this Court a copy of proceedings dated 14.07.2016 bearing RC.No.255/2014 A, issued by the 4^th respondent wherein nature of title of petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 was disclosed as D-form pattadars.

¶83

It can be seen from the material available on record that all the petitioners are holders of D-form patta pertaining to their respective lands as mentioned supra, in such a case, they cannot be denied compensation as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012 i.e., 100% of market value and 30% of solatium thereon. The Constitutional Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Lao-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and Others Vs. Mekala Pandu and Others¹ , held that assignees of the Government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in case where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant of patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose.

¶84

In view of the above discussion, as the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were already paid compensation i.e., @100% marker value and

¶85

1 AIR 2004 AP 250

¶86

10

¶87

VS,J W.P.No.3841 of 2018

¶88

30% solatium thereon, as per G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, the petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 or their legal heirs, who are also assignees as per the proceedings dated 14.07.2016 of the 4^th respondent, are also entitled for compensation on par with petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner Nos.4, 6 and 7 or their legal heirs, on par with petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue (Assgn.I), department dated 14.09.2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶89

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶91

_____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶92

08.07.2026 Gss

¶93

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No

Y. Jaganadha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Jaganadha Rao v. 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

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

G. Venkatapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bestha Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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