Sri Vijjapu Surya Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SMT MUTHYALAMMA, W/O. GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. KOTTAVURU VILLAGE, S. KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. CT IS AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT 02/03/2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN IA 02/2022.

¶20

2

¶21

SMT MADDILA SAILAJA, W/O. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. KOTTAVURU VILLAGE, S. KOTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondent authorities in assigning the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.17 Cents (822.8 sq.yds) situated in Sy. No. 84/11 of Kottavuru Revenue Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of Respondent No. 5 to 8 without acquiring the property under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the norms of public policy and against the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 300-A of The Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's property without acquiring the petitioner's property under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

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 not to interfere the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.17 Cents (822.8 sq.yds) situated in Sy. No. 84/11 of Kottavuru Revenue Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶27

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 permit the petitioner to amend in cause title of the respondent No. 7 as Smt. Muthyalamma instead of Smt. Musalamma in the Writ Petition and in interlocutory applications and to pass

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶29

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

¶30

3

¶31

vacate the Interim order granted on 17.01.2022 in W.P.No. 804 of 2022 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶32

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶33

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 to file the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 4rt Respondent and to pass

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

2.G RAMA GOPAL

¶39

The Court made the following Order:

¶40

Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

¶41

The instant writ petition is filed against the action of the respondents in assigning the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.17 cents (822.8 Sq.Yds) situated in Sy.No.84/11 of Kottavuru Revenue Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of the respondents 5 to 8 without acquiring the same by following the due procedure.

¶42

It is contended that the petitioner had purchased the subject property by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.618 of 2004. After the said purchase, he had sold it in favour of one Sri Madugula Hari by way of registered sale deed bearing documentNo.815 of 2018. Thereafter, the

¶43

4

¶44

petitioner had reacquired the said extent in 2011 through a registered sale deed. However, the respondents 5 to 8 have tried to occupy the subject land. Therefore petitioner filed a representation to the 2^nd respondent through ‘Spandana’ Portal on 16.09.2019. Upon the said representation, the 2^nd respondent - District Collector, called for a report from the 4^th respondent - Tahsildar. The 4^th respondent forwarded the report stating that the land in Sy.Nos.84 and 85 was acquired for issuance of house site pattas for the weaker sections. The petitioner contends that the respondents without paying any compensation to the petitioner, have acquired the subject land. Thus, the instant writ petition is filed challenging the said action and sought a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s property without acquiring the same under the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the patta holders were not in possession of the subject property over an extent of Ac.0.17 cents (822.8 Sq.Yds) situated in Sy.No.84/11 of Kotturu Revenue Village, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. This Court while issuing notice before admission vide order dated 17.01.2022 granted Status-Quo with regard to the possession of the lands however, thereafter, the assignment was made in violation of the interim orders passed by this Court and pattas were issued.

¶46

The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the subject land was acquired in 1996. It is further stated that the Kotturu Village of S.Kota Mandal

¶47

5

¶48

was an Estate Village of Erstwhile Vizianagaram Zamine Estate. This Village was taken over under the provisions of Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Survey and settlement operations conducted and Settlement Fair Adangal was introduced, subsequently, Supplemental Survey and Final Check Operations were conducted. FCO Fair Adangal was introduced in place of Settlement Fair Adangal w.e.f., 01.07.1982 for day to day revenue administration. As per the FCO Fair Adangal of Kotturu Village, S.Kota Mandal the land in Sy.No.84-11 measuring Ac.0.17 was recorded as Ryotwari Dry. The Government have acquired the land in Sy.No.84-11 measuring Ac.0.17cts along with other lands i.e., Sy.No.84-7,9,4,6, 85-22 and 82-2 &2 of Kotturu Village, S.Kota Mandal for grant of House sites to weaker sections in the year 1996. The land owners have filed two writ petitions in W.P.No.23411/1996 and W.P. No. 22446/1996 before the erstwhile High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. It is stated by the respondents that both the writ petitions were dismissed and the land was accordingly acquired and House site Pattas also distributed to the eligible beneficiaries during 2007 and 2008. All the beneficiaries have constructed their respective houses and are in occupation of the same. The Tahsildar further stated that, vide, the acquisition proceedings, the land was acquired in 1996 from the land owners, after payment of compensation, the house site pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries.

¶49

The 4^th respondent - Tahsildar further contended that land acquisition details were not incorporated in the revenue accounts. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner created the subject registered sale deeds and is

¶50

6

¶51

claiming possession and title of the subject land. Further contention of the respondents is that the petitioner does not have either the title or the possession of land. Thus, they are not entitled to any relief accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, during the course of arguments, has placed before the Court a Xerox copy (blurred) of the land acquisition officer, dated 15-05-2007 issued under 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. A perusal of the same appears to have been served on one Sri Goheda Akkunaidu, Kotturu Village on 19-052007.

¶52

Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents contends that, pursuant to the pattas granted in favour of the unofficial respondents, they have constructed residential houses and they are in possession and occupation of the subject land.

¶53

8. Considered the rival submissions.

¶54

A Perusal of the documents annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondents would disclose, particularly, the proceedings of the Tahsildar addressed to the RDO dated xx-05-2007, as on the said date, no award for acquisition of the land was passed in respect of the Sy.No.84/9, 7, 4, 11, 6 and 85/22.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in response to an RTI application filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar had replied vide endorsement dated 02.01.2018, had asked the petitioner to

¶56

7

¶57

submit documents, if any, about the notices received by the petitioner post the award and to submit the evidence showing that he has not received any compensation from the Land Acquisition Authority.

¶58

Two writ petitions were filed by some of the land owners, challenging the land acquisition notification one writ petition in W.P.No.23411 of 1996 (father of the petitioners’ vendor) was dismissed on 03.03.2008. Another writ petition in W.P.No.22446 of 1996 was allowed on 21.11.2008, setting aside the notification in so far as it relates to Sy.No.84/2, 84/3 of Kottavuru Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶59

In support of the contention that the subject land was acquired in 1996 and that an award was passed at the relevant point in time, no material has been placed before this court by the respondents. A perusal of the proceedings under 12(2) of the Act reflects that as on the date of the said proceedings, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners’ vendor’s father challenging the notification was pending. The respondents cannot base their claim on the said document to deny the claim of the petitioner and as the same does not appear to have been served on the claimant in respect of the subject land, further having regard to the period of limitation provided under the Act under Section 11(a) of the LA Act, if no award is passed within two (02) years from the date of publication of the declaration the entire proceedings would lapse. Unless the proceedings of declaration were stayed

¶60

by an order of the Court. In the absence of any pleading or material placed before the Court as regards the date of passing of the award, in the facts of

¶61

8

¶62

the case, it cannot be said that the respondents have acquired the subject land in accordance with the procedure for acquisition of the subject land.

¶63

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, dated 16.03.2026, to produce the record relating to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the respondents have only produced a ledger book called a Watch Register . Perusal of the same would not reflect any details of the award if any passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, from the perusal of the documents annexed to the counter affidavit, it reflects that in respect of the Sy.No.84/6, 7, 9, 11, three assignments, each of an extent of Ac.0.01 ½ cents appears to have been allotted. Each patta covers four subdivided numbers i.e., Sy.No.84/6, 7, 9, 11, including the subject subdivided survery number Sy.No.84/11.

¶64

In the absence of any material placed before the court to establish that an award was passed pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the provisions of LA Act, this Court is of the view that the respondents granted pattas in favour of the beneficiaries without following the procedure under law.

¶65

Having regard to the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner for the subject extent of land in Ac.0.17cents in favour of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

¶66

9

¶67

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, taking into consideration the market value as on the date of coming into force of RFCTLARR, 2013 Act.

¶68

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

¶69

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶70

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶71

Dated: 09-04-2026 MSI

Sri Vijjapu Surya Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijjapu Surya Rao 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

T S Nageswara Rao Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

A.Vijaya Lakshmi Devi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Penupothula Saraswathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.K. Palani, Vs Smt. v. Usha Rani

Yarakala Rama Krishna Vs Mutyala Raju

Goparaju Venkata Siva Rama Krishna, Vs The Tahsildar