Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2018 DAILYLAW 1033 (AP)

Shaik Akbar Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/8052/2018 · 2026-06-15

V Sujatha

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010184332018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8052/2018 Between: 1. SHAIK AKBAR SAHEB,, S/O. LATE ABDUL SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.9-31A, ABDULSAB INDLU, GANDRAJUPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SUKUR SAB,, S/O. LATE ABDULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEAR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 9-31B, ABDULSAB INDLU, GANDRAJUPALLI VILLAGE, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, GANDRAJUPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 10-2-1, FDC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. REP. BY ITS 2 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH INFRASTRUCTURE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP, BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER. ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioners rights over the land in an extant of Ac.0.81 Cents in Sy.No.126/2A, 0.35 Cents in 126/3A2, Ac.1.04 Cents in Sy.No. 126/3C3, Ac.1.08 Cents in Sy.No.135/4, Ac.0.27 Cents in Sy.No.135/5B, Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy.No.135/6A, Ac.0.36 Cents in Sy.No.135/6B, Ac.031 Cents in 135/6D and Ac.0.51 Cents in Sy.No.135/5b4, Ac.1.18 Cents in Sy.No. 135/4D and Ac.1.83 Cents in Sy.No.135/4D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the petitioners to take possession of the same without granting petitioners the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement as is provided under Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apart from violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in extant of Ac.0.81 Cents in Sy.No.126,2A, 0.35 Cents in 126/3A2, Ac.1.04 Cents in Sy.No. 126/3C3, Ac.1.08 Cents in Sy.No.135/4,Ac.0.27 Cents in Sy.No.135/5B, Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy.No.135/6A, Ac.0.36 Cents in Sy.No.13516B, Ac.0.31 Cents in 135/6D and Ac.0.51 Cents in Sy.No.135/5b4, Ac.1.18 Cents in Sy.No. 135/4D and Ac.1.83 Cents in Sy.No.13514D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, without granting petitioners the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 3 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 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 No.2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in extant of Ac.0.81 Cents in Sy.No.126/2A, 0.35 Cents in 126/3A2, Ac.1.04 Cents in Sy.No. 126/3C3, Ac.1.08 Cents in Sy.No.135/4, Ac.0.27 Cents in Sy.No.135/5B, Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy. No.135/6A, Ac.0.36 Cents in Sy.No.135/6B, Ac.0.31 Cents in 135/6D and Ac.0.51 Cents in Sy.No.135/5b4, Ac.1.18 Cents in Sy.No. 135/4D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, without granting petitoners the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 granted on 18-6-2018 in IA.No.1 of 2018 in WP.No.8052 of 2018 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 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 I.A.No.01 of 2018 in WP.No.8052 of 2018, dated: 16-03-2018 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 and 5 in interfering with the petitioners rights over the land in an extant of Ac.0.81 Cents in Sy.No.126/2A, 0.35 Cents in 126/3A2, Ac.1.04 Cents in Sy.No. 126/3C3, Ac.1.08 Cents in Sy.No.135/4, Ac.0.27 Cents in Sy.No.135/5B, Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy.No.135/6A, Ac.0.36 Cents in Sy.No.135/6B, Ac.031 Cents in 135/6D and Ac.0.51 Cents in Sy.No.135/5b4, Ac.1.18 Cents in Sy.No. 135/4D and Ac.1.83 Cents in Sy.No.135/4D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, belong to the petitioners to take possession of the same without granting petitioners the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement as is provided under Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apart from violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in extant of Ac.0.81 Cents in Sy.No.126,2A, 0.35 Cents in 126/3A2, Ac.1.04 Cents in Sy.No. 126/3C3, Ac.1.08 Cents in Sy.No.135/4,Ac.0.27 Cents in Sy.No.135/5B, Ac.0.11 Cents in Sy.No.135/6A, Ac.0.36 Cents in Sy.No.13516B, Ac.0.31 Cents in 135/6D and Ac.0.51 Cents in Sy.No.135/5b4, Ac.1.18 5 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 Cents in Sy.No. 135/4D and Ac.1.83 Cents in Sy.No.13514D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, without granting petitioners the benefits of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement and pass” 2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the land to an extent of Acs.0.81 cents in Sy.No.126/2A, Acs.0.35 cents in 126/3A2, Acs.1.04 cents in 126/3C3, Acs.1.08 cents in 135/4, Acs.0.27 cents in 135/5B, Acs.0.11 cents in 135/6A, Acs.0.36 cents in 135/6B, Acs.0.31 cents in 135/6D, Acs.0.51 cents in 135/5B4, Acs.1.18 cents in 135/4D, Acs.1.83 cents in 135/4D and 126/2B of Gandrajupalle village, Gangavaram mandal, Chittoor district. 3. While the matter stood thus, the respondents initiated proceedings under Section 11(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 2013‟) by initiating a paper publication in notification no.G/5475/2015, dated 07.08.2015 and another notification in ROC No.G1/5475/2015, dated 03.11.2015 under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 for establishing industrial park. Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over their land without granting benefits as per the Act, 2013, the present writ petition is filed. 6 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 16.03.2018, this Court has granted interim stay of dispossession, initially for a period of twelve weeks, which was extended thereafter from time to time. 5. The 6th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit along with a vacate stay petition wherein it is stated that pursuant to the requisition received from APIIC for acquisition of lands for establishment of Industrial park in Gandrajupalle village of Gangavaram mandal, an award No.03/General/2015, dated 28.11.2015 in Roc.G1/5475/2015, dated 28.11.2015 has been passed by the District Collector, Chittoor in respect of petitioners‟ lands admeasuring Acs.7.85 cents for an amount of Rs.74,57,500/-; subsequently, the land admeasuring Acs.7.85 cents has been handed over to Manager (AM), APIIC Limited, Chittoor on 16.07.2016. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have no right, title, possession and enjoyment over the subject property and that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition and hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Ms. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the contents of the counter affidavit, it is an admitted fact that the subject land has been acquired by the respondent authorities on a requisition made by APIIC and thereafter, 7 VS,J W.P.No.8052 of 2018 an award was passed on 28.11.2015 after duly conducting an enquiry under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Subsequently, compensation amount was also paid to the petitioners, which was also acknowledged by them and the said land was handed over to APIIC. In such a case, the petitioners cannot seek this Court to direct the respondents not to interfere with the subject lands. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.06.2026 Gss