Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading APHC010471192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22111 Between: 1. SETTI KANAKAM @ KANAKA RAJU, S/O.APPA RAO HINDU, AGED 73 YEARS R/O.MADHAVAIPALEM NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENTS NEW DELHI. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION AND ADDITIONAL JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE TAHSILDAR, NARSAPUR, WEST 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 particularl a writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Rc.No.1/AJC/NH 06-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and consequently to set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 1 Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :01.07.2026. : 10.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22111 of 2018 SETTI KANAKAM @ KANAKA RAJU, S/O.APPA RAO HINDU, AGED 73 YEARS R/O.MADHAVAIPALEM NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENTS NEW DELHI. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION AND ADDITIONAL JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU ANDHRA PRADESH THE TAHSILDAR, NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP ...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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice in Rc.No.1/AJC/NH- 2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and consequently to set aside IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA SETTI KANAKAM @ KANAKA RAJU, S/O.APPA RAO HINDU, AGED 73 YEARS R/O.MADHAVAIPALEM NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION AND ADDITIONAL JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP ...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 y one in the nature of -216/2017 dt.12- 2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power, without jurisdiction and contrary to law and consequently to set aside 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice in Rc.No.1 /AJC/ NH-216/2017 dt.12-06-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 vacate the interim orders dated.03.07.2018 in IA No.1 of 2018 in WP No. 22111 of 2018 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. S S VARMA(SR PANEL COUNSEL CENT GOVT) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 22111 of 2018 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed declaring the Notice in Rc.No.1/AJC/NH- 216/2017 dt.12-06-2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The precise case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.2 has acquired an extent of 61.45 Sq.mtrs in R.S.No.152/1 C1 for the purpose of formation of NH-216 and thereafter passed an Award No. 7/2015, dated 14.07.2016 by fixing the compensation at Rs. 21,22,192/- in favour of the Petitioner under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act and paid the compensation. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.2 issued impugned notice, dated 12.06.2018 directing the Petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.6,73,125/- and remit the same to his account on the ground that the Tahsildar has submitted a report stating that one Mr. Setti Narayana Rao has submitted a representation that he is the owner of the part of the land, which acquired from the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that once an Award has been passed by the Respondent No.2, he does not have any authority to direct the Petitioner to refund the said amount. 4. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it can be observed that having identified that the Petitioner was paid excess 4 compensation for the land covered by the Partition Deed, Respondent No.2 issued notice to the Petitioner on 28.11.2017 directing him to attend before him, and furnish documentary evidence in respect of the extent for which, he received compensation. In pursuance of the said notice, the Petitioner attended the office of Respondent No.2 on 29.11.2017 and admitted that he received compensation exceeding the land covered by the partition deed and further stated that if the excess compensation is paid to him other than his entitlement, he is willing to refund the excess compensation, as such requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Copy of the statement given by the Petitioner is filed along with the counter affidavit of Respondent No.2. In the statement, Petitioner himself has admitted that he has received excess compensation other than his entitlement and he is ready and willing to refund the excess compensation paid beyond his entitlement. Having given a statement before Respondent No.2 that he is willing to refund the excess compensation paid beyond his entitlement, the Petitioner has no right to question the subsequent impugned notice issued by Respondent No.2. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent No.2 for agitating his grievance, if any. No costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 01.07.2026 KK Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No