APHC010116952020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NOs: 7097 & 12685 of 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 7097 of 2020 Between: 1. . SMT. G. MANGAMMA,, W/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/ O. DOOR NO.6-175, NALLARIPALLI VILLAGE, KALIKIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VALMIKIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.7097 & 12685 of 2020 WRIT PETITION NO: 12685/2020: Between: 1. G MANGAMMA, W/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO.6-175, NALLARIPALLI VILLAGE, KALIKIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VALMIKIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , KALIKIRI MANDAL, KALIKIRI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER, TIRUPATI, CHITTOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.7097 & 12685 of 2020 The Court made the following Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The W.P.No.7097 of 2020 was filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from her private patta agricultural land in an extent of Ac.9.07 cents in Sy.No.508 of Thatiguntapalli Village, Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District without following the due process of law. 3. The W.P.No.12685 of 2020 was filed questioning the order of the 3rd respondent dated 10.11.2011 in resuming the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.9.07 cents in Sy.No.508 of Thatiguntapalli Village, Valmikipuram Mandal, Chittoor District without initiating the proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent issued the notice dated 07.09.2011 with respect to the scheduled land stating that the Government decided to take the subject land for public purpose as per the condition of the Darakasthu patta and G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue (Assignment-I), Department, dated 23.12.1993. Hence, if you have any objection, within 15 days you can submit explanation to it, otherwise it will be presumed that you have no objection for the same and the Darakasthu patta 4 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.7097 & 12685 of 2020 would be cancelled and the land will be resumed to the Government for public purpose. Then the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 06.11.2011. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent passed the orders dated 10.11.2011 cancelling the patta of the petitioner for the subject land and the same was taken away for public purpose to allot the same for the 5th respondent-Corporation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter of the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner purchased the above said land vide registered sale deed No.2215/1962, dated 09.08.1962 and she was granted pattadar passbook vide IB Khata No.47. The petitioner was already dispossessed from the subject land in the year 2012 by paying the ex-gratia sanctioned by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 10.03.2012. The petitioner received the ex-gratia in check No.181770, dated 17.12.2012 and the subject land was taken over by the Government for utilization of the same for the public purpose. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even after payment of ex-gratia, still the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation for the subject land, as it was taken over by the Government for public purpose. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make representation afresh to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.P.No.12685 of 2020, enclosing all the necessary documents in support of 5 HBKM,J W.P.Nos.7097 & 12685 of 2020 her claim within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the said writ petition are directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter. 8. Accordingly, W.P.No.12685 of 2020 is disposed of. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.12685 of 2020, the W.P.No.7097 of 2020 is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 28.07.2025 PGT