APHC010686272022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40677 OF 2022 Between: 1. MAHAMKALI RADHIKA, D/O. MAHAMKALISAMBASIVARAO, AGED. 28 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 3-46-1, MUNUMAKA, VIPPARLAPALLE, AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION), REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CCLA, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 522601. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OF THE COURT DATED 24.03.2026 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: P Vivek Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP for Land Acquisition 2 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents. 2. It is contended that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.103/21-1B of Annavaram Village, Rompicherla Mandal, Guntur District, was initially assigned in favour of one Murtaiah an Ex-Servicemen in 1992, under Ex-servicemen quota. In recognition of his title and possession, the revenue authorities have mutated his name in the revenue records. Subsequently in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993, as the assignments made in favour of Ex-servicemen were allowed to sell or alienate, the said Muthaiah after 18 years of assignment had sold the same in favour of the petitioner for consideration in 2014. 3. However, the 5th respondent issued the proceedings for resumption of the land in total disregard of the G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11.11.1993. Aggrieved by the resumption order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on 17.08.2018. During the pendency of the appeal, the subject land was acquired by Power Grid Southern Inter Connector Transmission System Limited, Secunderabad for construction of Sub-station. Thereafter, the appeal pending before the RDO, filed by the petitioner was allowed on 13.11.2019 setting aside the order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar. On 04.12.2019, the 4th respondent sent a proposal to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner is eligible for 100% ex-gratia as 3 per G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016 & G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012, and thus recommended for payment of compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- to the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.09.2020 to the RDO, observing that the Ex-servicemen, were under an obligation to obtain NOC from the District Collector for transfer of the land. As the assignee did not obtain the NOC as contemplated by law, the District Collector observed that the RDO has recommended the grant of ex-gratia, ignoring G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 06.06.2013. Thus, requested the RDO to resubmit the proposal. In pursuance thereof, the 4th & 5th respondents have submitted their proposals vide proceedings dated 13.08.2021 and 26.02.2021 respectively reiterating their earlier report that the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation. 4. The said reports were forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent on 25.03.2022. The 2nd respondent, CCLA, passed an order dated 13.07.2022 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of compensation. The Tahsildar had resumed the land on 17.07.2018, as the assignee had sold the land without obtaining the required NOC from the District Collector; in light of the same, the petitioner cannot seek compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said observation of the CCLA is not sustainable as the order of resumption was set-aside by the RDO vide his proceedings dated 13.11.2019 and during the pendency of the said appeal the land was acquired. 4 6. During the course of previous hearings of the writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue has brought to the notice of this Court that an appeal has been filed against the proceedings of the RDO dated 13.11.2019 under Section 4-A(2) of the AP Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said appeal was filed on 27.01.2026 with a delay of 2177 days before the District Collector, Palnadu. 7. It is stated that the said appeal was filed on 27.01.2026 and the 3rd respondent had condoned the delay of 2177 days in preferring the appeal on 30.01.2026. When, the same was brought to the notice of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed respective applications seeking impleadment of the 6th respondent and amendment of relief in the writ petition by challenging the said proceedings of the District Collector dated 30.01.2026. The said amendment application was allowed on 24.03.2026. 8. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the appeal now filed before the 6th respondent is not maintainable, as the same was filed with abnormal delay and the said delay was condoned without issuing any notice to the petitioner herein. 9. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of erstwhile composite High Court at Hyderabad in the case of D.Umarani vs. The District Collector1, wherein a similar issue had come up 1 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 197 5 for consideration, as to the condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petitions. Wherein it was held that: “34. Section 10 of the Act mandates that the provisions of the Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, concerning the subject matters of the Act, 1977, no other law including Limitation Act would apply. 35. The reading of various provisions of the Act, 1977 makes it clear that legislature did not intend to expand time to file appeal/revision even if it is for genuine cause. Thus, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable in exercise of power by the statutory authority dealing with appeals/revisions under the Act, 1977. The provisions of the Act are not under challenge. 36. In view of the principles culled out from the long line of precedents referred to above and in view of the statutory scheme of Act, 1977 it can not be said that the Revisional Authority erred in his decision to reject the revision filed by the petitioners as not maintainable, as such revisions were filed beyond 90 days prescribed in Section 4B of the Act, 1977 warranting interference by this court. Thus, I see no merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.” 10. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the assignee was obligated under law at the relevant point of time to obtain NOC from the District Collector before alienating the assigned land. However, the assignee sold the land on 11.12.2014 without the said NOC, contrary to G.O.Ms.NO.307 dated 06.06.2013. 6 11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would argue that the applicable G.O. in the instant case as on the date of purchase by the petitioner was G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 06.06.2013. G.O.Ms.No.279 dated 04.07.2016 was issued much after the sale made in favour of the petitioner in 2014. Thus, the said G.O i.e., G.O.Ms.No.279 would not be applicable, rather G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 06.06.2013 would apply. Thus, contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. 12. Considered the submissions. 13. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the RDO against the order of resumption dated 17.07.2018 was allowed by the RDO on 13.11.2019. The same has become final. Basing on the said order both authorities i.e., Tahsildar and RDO, twice have recommended for grant of compensation to the petitioner. After such recommendation, it has been decided by the District Collector to file an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of the RDO. Accordingly, he directed the Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 19.01.2026 to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 4- A(2) of the Act. In terms of the said directions of the District Collector, the Tahsildar filed an appeal on 27.01.2026 before the appellate authority on 27.01.2026 with a delay of 2177 days. The said delay was condoned on 30.01.2026 without issuing the notice to the writ petitioner, the respondents in the said appeal. 7 14. In the instant writ petition counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent was filed on 07.10.2025 and the writ petition was heard on 22.01.2026 and the matter was directed to be listed on 30.01.2026. In between the dates of 22.01.2026 and 30.01.2026, the District collector, referring to the proceedings of the CCLA of the year 2023 has directed the Tahsildar to file an appeal before the appellate authority that is the Collector himself. 15. It is pertinent to observe that the District Collector, Palnadu, the 6th respondent himself is the appellate authority, he directed the Tahsildar to file an appeal against the order of the RDO under Section 4-A(2) of the Act. The Tahsildar being a sub-ordinate officer to the District Collector obeyed the directions of the District Collector and filed an appeal. Surprisingly the same, District Collector sitting, in the capacity of an appellate authority, passed an order condoning the huge delay of 2177 days. The 6th respondent-District Collector in the instant case has exercised both the jurisdictions of as the head of the Revenue Department of the District unit while directing the Tahsildar to file an appeal and as the appellate authority while condoning the abnormal delay of 2177 days without issuing notice. 16. The District Collector had directed the Tahsildar to file an appeal, in the said appeal he had condoned the delay and said condonation of delay is not supported by any reasons, which in the light of the judgment referred supra is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of the 6th respondent dated 30.01.2026 is set aside holding that the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation is not maintainable. 8 17. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 13.07.2022, 27.01.2026 and 30.04.2026 are set-aside. The respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum w.e.f. 04.12.2019, the date on which the 4th respondent sent proposals to the 3rd respondent, to the petitioner. 18. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 04.05.2026 BSK 9 30 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40677 OF 2022 Date: 04.05.2026 BSK