IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos: 6790, 6792 AND 7021 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION No: 6790 OF 2024 Between: 1. K. Nagaratnam, S/o. Jayaramaiah, Aged 36 years 2. K. Padmamma, W/o. Ramaiah, Aged 44 years 3. K. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinnaswamy, Aged 56 Years 4. M. Bujjaiah, S/o. Pichaiah, Aged 69 years 5. M.Chenchuramaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged 41 years 6. M.Gangamma, W/o. ChencHaiah, Aged 60 years 7. M.Gopi, S/o. Kannaiah, Aged 49 years 8. M. Indrani, W/o. Jayaramaiah, Aged 62 years 9. M. Maraiah, S/o. Alluraiah, Aged 53 years lO.Sanjeevaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 58 years 11.P. Ravi, Sio. Balaiah, Aged 58 years 12.P. Kantamma, W/o. Krishnaiah, Aged 65 years 13.T. Dhana Lakshmi, W/o. Vehkataiah, Aged 49 years All are residents of Chinnapahduru Panchayat, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Special Deputy Collector, Sullurupet Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the the High Court may be circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order, Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioners Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency i Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, one as per the provisions of Land Acquisition, in 2013 and issuing proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2"“ respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of consequently set-aside the proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2 following the procedure contemplated under the India and nd respondent and pay compensation by provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2070. lA NO: 1 OF 2070. Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to praying that in the circumstances pay compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act Transparency in 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. VINOD K REDDY 7 / Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T. SANJEEVA RAO, ASST.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 6792 OF 2024 Between: 1. N.Subramanyam, S/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 55 years 2. P. Chellamma, W/o. Jayaramaiah, Aged 55 years 3. P. Papaiah, S/o. Siddaiah, Aged 64 years 4. P. Papaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 48 years 5. P. Sumati, W/o. Ravi, Aged 54 years 6. P.Shanti, W/o. Polaiah, Aged 45 years. 7. P. Polamma, W/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 70 years 8. P. Sankaraiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Aged 52 years 9. P. Veeramma, W/o. Ramaiah, Aged 48 years 10.S. Subramanyam, S/o. Desaiah, Aged 62 years 11 .T. Sadavallamma, W/o. Vehkateswarlu, Aged 71 years 12.M. Chenchaiah, S/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 42 years 13.A. Chenchamma, W/o. Chinnaiah, Aged 62 years 14.T.Mangamma, W/o. Chinnaiah, Aged 67 years 15.T. Damodaram, S/o. Dillaiah, Aged 66 years 16.T. Polamma, W/o. Mohan; Aged 45 years 17.T. Maremma, W/o. Saravana, Aged 44 years All are residents of Chinnapanduru Panchayat, Varadaiahpalem Mandal Tirupati District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. -mr 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Special Deputy Collector, Sullurupet Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and issuing proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2'^^ respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 21.06.2016 issued by the 2"^^ respondent and pay compensation by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation arid Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T. SANJEEVA RAO, ASST.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE WRIT PETITION NO: 7021 OF 2024 Between: 1. T. Gopanna, S/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 58 years 2. T. Ravi, S/o. Polaiah, Aged 49 years 3. T. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Veeraswamy, Aged 54 years 4. T. Chinnammai, W/o. Sadasivaiah, Aged 48 years 5. T. Seivi, W/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 42 years 6. T. Saiamma, W/o. Subramanyarn, Aged 50 years 7. T. Polamma, W/o. Suresh, Aged 58 years 8. T. Venkatesulu, S/o. Chengaiah, Aged 52 years 9. T. Rajani, W/o. Gajendra, Aged 44 years 10.T. Kala, W/o. Kuppaiah, Aged 51 years lI.E.Nagaraju, S/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 48 years 12.E.Sadamamma, W/o. Nagaiah, Aged 40 years 1 S.Chellamrna, W/o. Gangaiahv Aged 63 years All are residents of Chinnapanduru Panchayat, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Special Deputy Collector, Sullurupet, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamiiis declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and issuing proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2"'^ respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings in ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the ;2"'^ respondent and pay compensation by following the procedure contertiplated under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by follbwfhg the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI T. SANJEEVA RAO, ASST.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.6790, 6792 & 7021 of 2024 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Land Acquisition appearing for the Respondents. 2. As all these three Writ Petitions have raised common issues, the three Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts emerging from W.P.No.6790 of 2024 are referred to in this Common Order. 4. The relief sought in this Writ Petition (W.P.No.6790 of 2024) is as under: “In view of the facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and issuing proceedings in ROC.G2/2095 /2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2^° respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2^^ respondent and pay compensation by following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” set-aside the proceedings in 5. !t is the contention of Sri \/inod K Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the facts in these three Writ Petitions are identical to the facts in W.P.No.22879 and 22861 of 2018, wherein, Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, vide Order dated 27.12.2018 was pleased to allow the same. The Official Respondents have filed Writ Appeal No.754 of 2023 against the Order dated 27.12.2018 in W.P.No.22879 of 2018; that vide Order dated 01.03.2024 the Writ Appeal No.754 of 2023 was dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would further submit that the Official Respondents have filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S). 52870 of 2024. Although, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had initially granted stay of operation of the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22879 of 2018, later, vide Order dated 24.01.2025 was pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners herein are the DKT Patta Holders in Chinnapandur village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupathi District; that the lands which belong to the Writ Petitioners were taken in the year 2016 for the purpose of establishing ‘Industrial Park’; that on 24.06.2016, the District Collector, Chittor has issued Proceedings No.02/2095/2016 fixing ex gratia of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre without following the procedure contemplated under Act 30 of 2013; that though the Writ Petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation as per the Act 30 of 2013, the District Collector has chosen to pay an ex gratia amount of Rs.6,50,000/- for each D.K.T. Patta holder; that some of the persons who lost the land in the acquisition process had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.22879 of 2018; that vide Order dated 27.12.2018, the Writ Petition came to be allowed, by fixing compensation @ Rs. 17,28,066/- per acre to the Writ Petitioners (to all D.K.T. Patta Holders) for resuming their lands in the year 2016 including interest as per Section 80 of the Act 30 of 2013. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 27.12.2018 in W.P.No.22879 of 2018, the State had preferred Writ Appeal No,754 of 2023; that the Writ Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of 6. 3 this Court vide Order dated 01.03.2024; this Order dated 01.03.2024 in W.A.No.754 of 2023 came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S). 52870 of 2024; that vide Order dated 24.01.2025, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S). 52870 of 2024 came to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 569. “13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case Is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant. 14. The State has submitted that in 2008 it had initiated acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining landowner viz. Shri Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction given by the High Court in Anakh Singh v. State of H.P. [Anakh Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 220] The State initiated acquisition only in the case where directions were issued by the High Court, and not in the case of other landowners whose lands were compulsorily taken over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the present landowner has been driven to move the Court in their individual cases for redressal. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent State is directed to pay the compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court vide order dated 7-7-2015 in Anakh Singhcase [Anakh Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 220] (i.e. Land Reference No. 1 of 2011 RBT No. 01/13) along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An affidavit of compliance is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks. 1. 4 % 16. It is informed that an appeal has been preferred by Ravinder Singh s/o Anakh Singh & Ors. being RFA No. 35 of 2016 which is pending before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. 17. Taking note thereof, If an appeal is filed by the present appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to be within limitation, and would be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 18. The respondent State is directed to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs 1,00,000 to the present appellant. 19. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders dated 11-9-2013 [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., 2013 SCC OnLine HP 5384] and 13-5-2014 [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5941] passed by the High Court are set aside. Ordered accordingly. ” 8. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Katra and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others; (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 508, where the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para Nos.17 and 18 as under: 17. When seen holistically, it is apparent that the State's actions, or lack thereof, have in fact compounded the injustice meted out to the appellants and compelled them to approach this Court, albeit belatedly. The initiation of acquisition proceedings initially in the 1990s occurred only at the behest of the High Court. Even after such judicial intervention, the State continued to only extend the benefit of the Court's directions to those who specifically approached the courts. The State's lackadaisical conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those writ petitioners who had approached the court in earlier proceedings, and not other landowners, pursuant to the orders dated 23-4-2007 (in Anakh Singh v. State of H.P. [Anakh Singh V. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 220]) and 20-12- 2013 (in Onkar Singh v. State [Onkar Singh \/. State, CWP No. 1356 of 2010, order dated 20-12-2013 (HP)] ), respectively. In this manner, at every stage, the State sought to shirk its responsibility of acquiring land required for public use in the manner prescribed by law. 18. There is a welter of precedents on delay and laches which conclude either way—as contended by both sides in the present dispute—however, the specific factual matrix compels F 5 this Court to weigh in favour of the appellant landowners. The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches In such a situation; there cannot be a “limitation’’ to doing justice. This Court in a much earlier case — Maharashtra SRTCv. Balwant Regular Motor Service [Maharashtra SRTC V. Balwant Regular Motor Sen/ice, (1969) 1 SCR 808 : AIR 1969 SC 329], held: (AIR pp. 335-36, para 11) “11. ... ‘Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation In which It would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy’. ” In the light of the above facts in respect of the same subject property, all the earlier cases have attained finality in favour of the Writ Petitioners and thereby giving a direction to the Official Respondents to decide the compensation in accordance with law. 9. n !l Sri Vinod K Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, while placing reliance on the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu and others; 2004 SCO OnLine AP 217, submits that the principle that the assignees are also entitled to the same kind of compensation in land Acquisition proceeding as that of the holders of ryotwari patta and patta land had attained finality and that it is no 10. 6 longer a res Integra. In view of this settled principle of law, this Court does not find any reason to deviate from the position mentioned above. 11. In this view of the matter, these Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos. 6790, 6792 & 7021 of 2024) stand allowed. The Respondents are directed to compensation by treating the Writ Petitioners as free holders of land, thereby entitling them to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). This Court has noticed that the claimants who have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22879 of 2018 etc., have been declared as being entitled for the compensation as per the market value as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). Keeping this in mind, there shall be a further direction to the Official Respondents to pay the compensation within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the website of this Court. pay 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i\/y^ To, SECTION OFFICER 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Special Tirupati District. Deputy Collector, Sullurupet, 4. The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem, Tirupati District. 5. One CC to Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 g( 01 AUG 2025 K r»ntS«cli< spatcb: COMMON ORDER Co WP.Nos.6790, 6792 and 7021 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS