[3505 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE IS PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAI^ WRIT PETITION NO: 10641 DF 2022 Af a Between; 1. DEVABHAKTUNI RAMA LINGESWARA RAO, S/o Late Sambaiah Aged about 75 years, Occ: Retd. Employee R/o 3-8-169, Road No.5, Chandrapur! colony L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 074 2. DEVABHAKTUNI RAMA KOTESWARAS RAO, S/o Late Sambaiah Aged about 64 years, Occ; Pvt. Employee R/o 3-8-115 Chandrapur! colony L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 074 3. DEVABHAKTUNI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 Late Devabhaktun! Rao Aged about 48 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o Flat Leaves Apartments Hariharapuram colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070 Road No.5, Sankara No.503, Green 4. RAVELLA RAGHUNATH BABU, S/o Ravella Raja Gopala Rao Aged about 65 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o Potluri Residency, Flat No.204 Police Station Kamaiah Thopu Vijayawada-520 007, NTR District, AP 5. KORRAPATI KANYAKUMARI, W/o Late Korrapati Srinivasa about 80 years, Occ; Household R/o 8-72, village of Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District 6. SABBINENI BOSE, S/o Venkata Ramaiah Agriculture R/o D.No.3-52, DrSuri Bazar Challapalli village Krishna District, A.P. Opp Rao Aged Kaptanupalem, Pedaprolu Aged about 64 years, Occ; and Mandal 7. RAVI BABU RAO, S/o Venkata Ramaiah Aged about 64 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o C/o Ravi Vasantha Rao Venkatapuram village Mandal Krishna District, A.P. , Mopidevi 8. MAVULURI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/o Late Mavuluri Yedukondalu about 49 years, Occ: Household R/o D.No.9-71, Challapalli village Mandal Aged and ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Road, Transport and Highways New Delhi 2. National Highway Authority of India Ltd., Rep. by its Project Director NHDP IV, PIV, Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist., A.P. 3. The Competent Authority (L.A.) & Joint Collector, Krishna District At Machilipatnam 4. The Arbitrator and District Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring (a)The rejection proceedings vide Rs.G1A.91/2017, dated the High Court may one 11-01-2019 against the petitioners 1 to 5 and Rc.No.(G1).93/2017-(3) dated 30-11-2020 against the petitioners 6 and 7 and Rc.(G1).93/2017-(5) dated 30-11-2020 against the petitioner No.8 without even mentioning the extent of 728 sq. mtrs., in RS.No.189-1 B; rejection proceedings vide (b)Not considering the market value certificate as on 13-01-2016 and 09-02-2016 issued by the Sub Registrar, 0-aiiapaili much prior to the notification for land acquisition; (c)Not determining the house site value as well as structures value for petitioners 1 to 5, houses; ^ as the respondents acquired the site by demolishing the (d)Without the enhancement by four times of the land value and keep the multipie factor of 1.25 instead of 2.0, statutory benefits under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiiitation and Resettiemenf Act. 2013 Solatium along with interest thereon as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and by following the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act 2013 and and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for their lands acquired by the respondent authorities petitioner's house admeasuring 850 , 1®‘ sq. mtrs., in R.S.No.29/2B, 2^^ petitioner's House admeasuring 850 petitioner's House admeasuring 202 petitioner's House admeasuring 1457 sq. mtrs., in R.S. No.29/2B, 3'^ sq. mtrs., in R.S.No.29/1 B, 4'^ sq. mtrs., in .No.29/4B, 5‘*^ petitioner’s House admeasuring 1578 sq. mtrs., in RS No.29/3Aall situated at Pedaprolu village of Mopidevi Mandal, admeasuring 492 sq. mtrs.. Krishna District, 6'^ petitioner’s land in RS.No.189/1D, petitioner’s land admeasuring 1780 sq. mtrs., in R.SN0.189/1C and 8"’ petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.728 sq mtrs., in R.S.N0.189-1B, petitioners 6 to 8 lands situated at Chaliapalli village and Mandal, Krishna District. lA NO: 1 OF ?n?9 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 to consider the market value of Rs.600/- per sq. yards, Rs.810/- and Rs.3,000/- per sq. ft., (RCC building) to the petitioners 1 to 5 per sq. yard to the petitioners 6 to 8 the said valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Chaliapalli basic value for calculating the extent Krishna District, A.P., as of petitioners' that is by four times of the land value and keep the multiple factor benefits under Right to Fair of 2.0 instead of 1.25, statutory Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Solatium along with interest thereon and other statutory benefits; Counsel for the Petitioner.SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO L T Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION : GP FOR REVENUE : SRI S.S. VARMA, STANDING COUNSEL The Court made the following: APHC010167612022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10641/2022 Between: Devabhaktuni Rama Lingeswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.CHANDRASEKHARA RAO L T Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) 2 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “ to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring (a) The rejection proceedings vide Rs.G1A.91/2017, dated 11.01.2019 against the petitioners 1 to 5 and Rc.No.(G1).93/2017-(3) dated 30.11.2020 against the petitioners 6 and 7 and rejection proceedings vide Rc.(GI).93/2017-(5) dated 30.11.2020 against the petitioner No. 8 without even mentioning the extent of 728 sq mtrs in RS.No.189- 1B; (b) Not considering the market value certificate as on 13.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 issued by the Sub Registrar, Challapalli much prior to the notification for land acquisition; (c) Not determining the house site value as well as structures value for petitioners 1 to 5 as the respondents acquired the site by demolishing the houses; (d) Without the enhancement by four times of the land value and keep the multiple factor of 1.25 instead of 2.0 statutory benefits under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 Solatium along with interest thereon as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and by following the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for their lands acquired by the respondent authorities 1 admeasuring 850 sq mtrs in R.S.No.29/2B, 2”“^ petitioners Flouse admeasuring 850 sq mtrs in R.S.No 29/2B, 3^^ petitioners House admeasuring 202 sq mtrs in R.S.No.29/IB, 4^'^ petitioners House admeasuring petitioners house 3 1457 sq mtrs in RS.No.29/4B, 5^^ petitioner’s house admeasuring 1578 sq.mtrs, in RS.No.29/3A all situated at Pedaprolu village of MopidevI Mandal Krishna District 6^^ petitioner’s land admeasuring 492 sq mirs in RS.No. 189/ID, 7^^ petitioner’s land admeasuring 1780 sq mtrs in RS.No.189/1C and 8^'^ petitioner’s land admeasuring 728 sq mtrs in R.S.N0.1891B, petitioners 6 to 8 lands situated at Chaliapalli village and Mandal Krishna District and to pass such other order or orders ” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, their lands and houses situated in Chaliapalli Village and Mandal, Krishna District, were notified for acquisiton. It is further case of the petitioners that, the 2'^^ respondent issued a notification under Section 3(A) of National Highway Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) vide SO.No.114(E) dated 13.01.2016, to acquire the petitioners’ lands together with residential houses, for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.216, passing through Pedaprolu Village under Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. In pursuance thereof, a notification under Section 3(D) of the Act was published on 26.08.2016, to which the petitioners claim that they have filed objections and the same were rejected by the competent authority vide proceedings in RC.G1.2488/2015, dated 28.04.2016. Thereafter, a notice dated 14.12.2016, was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act, requesting the petitioners/land 4 users to appear before the respondent on 29.12.2016, at Tahsildar’s Office, Mopidevi. Thereafter, Award was passed on 31.03,2017, by following the procedure contemplated under the Act. Assailing the correctness of the said award, the petitioners approached the 4 respondent for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation granted under the Award was not in accordance with the promise made by the competent authority i.e., the Joint Collector, Krishna. It is further case of the petitioners that, the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the market value certificate dated 09.02.2016, issued by the concerned Sub Registrar. It is further case of the petitioners that, though the respective houses of them acquired, the compensation was paid treating the subject lands as agricultural lands instead of non agricultural lands. were 3. The 4 respondent after hearing the petitioners by impugned order dated 11.01.2019 and 30.11.2020 rejected the case of the petitioners. Questioning the said orders the present writ petition is filed. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed counter affidavit stating that, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the same is filed after a period of three (03) years from the 4. 5 date of arbitration proceedings passed by the 4*^^ respondent. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have got an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the District Court, Machilipatnam, is available as per Section 3G(6) of the Act by filing a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is further stated, that the compensation was fixed based on the market value as per Sections 26 to 30 of Act 30 of 2013, by taking into consideration of the sale transactions that took place for the preceding three years from the date of publication of 3(A) notification and accordingly Award was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed arbitration petition before the 4*'^ respondent. It is further stated, after consideration of the case of the petitioners, the 4‘^ respondent dismissed the same. It is further stated that, there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders passed by the 4**^ respondent. Apart from the same, it is specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit that, the writ petitioners have constructed their residential houses in a portion of agricultural lands belonging to them. It is further stated that, the subject lands are classified as agricultural lands as per the entries in revenue records. It is further stated that, the subject lands were never converted from agricultural lands to % 6 non-agricultural lands, and therefore, the subject lands cannot be treated as non agricultural lands. It is further stated that, as per GO.Ms.No.389, dated 20.11.2014, the Government of Andhra Pradesh notified the multiplication factor in the Scheduled Areas (Tribal Areas) @ 1.50 and other than schedules areas it is @ 1.25. It is further stated that, while passing Award, the same was adopted by the respondents as per the above Governmental Order. Therefore, the 4*'^ respondent rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that apart from the market value. the respondents have also paid compensation towards structures that were raised by the petitioners in the subject land. It is contended that there are no merits in the writ petition, inasmuch as, the respondents have followed the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, while passing the award and the same was confirmed in arbitration before the 4**^ respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant 5. Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear 6. that, the subject lands were acquired by National Highway 7 Authority of India and an Award was passed treating the subject lands as agricultural lands as against the claim made by the petitioners that the lands are non agricultural lands, it is not in dispute questioning the award dated 31.03.2017, the petitioners approached the 4*'^ respondent by filing arbitration petition for enhancement of compensation by treating the subject lands as non agricultural lands. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the 4*^ respondent did not consider their case in its proper perspective, inasmuch as the 4*^ respondent has not taken into consideration the market value certificate dated 09.02.2016. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the writ petition on the ground that, the petitioners have got an efficacious alternative remedy under the statute and to dismiss the writ petition. The respondents have also placed reliance on order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.22053 of 2018, whereunder this Court did not entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioners to take recourse to alternative remedy. 7. It is not in dispute, that the petitioners have got alternative remedy under the statute as per Section 3G(6) of National Highways Act, 1956 by filing a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal Civil 8 Court of original jurisdiction in a District. Though, there are certain exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are replaced or when an order has been passed in total violation of principles of natural justice. In the absence of the above, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the availability of efficacious alternative The case on hand does not fit into the above remedy. parameters. The grievance of the petitioners is that compensation was 8. paid to them by treating the subject lands as agricultural lands instead of non agricultural lands. Further, the grievance of the petitioners is only in relation to the outcome of the adjudication but not in relation to process of adjudication. The issue involved in the present writ petition revolves around the classification of subject lands. In view of disputed questions of fact raised by both the parties, the same cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 9 0 India, more particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the statute. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse of law as per Section 3G(6) of the Act by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, if they are so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 9. Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTER //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO L T Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. OneCCto SRI. S.S. VARMA, STANDING COUNSEL [OPUC 5. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.10641 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION