IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13038 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Kandukuri Rama, W/o Janardhana Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years, R/o D. No.7-10-57/1, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 2. Smt. Nirmala Ben Patel, w/o. Gopal Patel, Hindu, Aged 42 years, R/o. D.No.26-23-13/2, Chaitanya Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Visakhaptnam District ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal secretary. Department of Revenue, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P. 2. The Joint Collector-Cum-Competant authority. Land Acquisition, (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH-38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Special Deputy Collector- Land Acquisition, NH-16 (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH-38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 4. The Union of India, Represented by its secretary. Minister of Roads, Transport and Highways, Central Secretary, New Delhi. 5. The District Collector and Arbitrator, Collector Office, Visakhapatnam 6. The Project Director, NHAI, NH-16 (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH- 38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli. 8. The Sub Registrar, Anakapalli SRO, Anakapalli District. 9. The District Collector, Anakapalli. (R9 is impleaded in Writ Petition and Affidavit as per the Court Order dt.06.09.2024 vide orders passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2024.) ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for records on the file of the Respondent no.5 in Arbitration No. 195/2019, Dt.21-03-2022 and the award No.46 / 2018, dt.05-11-2018 in respect of the petitioners and to quash the same insofar as it restricts the compensation to Rs.1,20,00,000/- per acre for the lands in Survey No. 1652/2A1 situated in Anakapalli Village and Mandal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pass award and compensation considering the fact of conversion of subject land into agriculture land and determine the market value of the subject land Rs.17500/- per square yard as given by Respondent no.8 at the date of publication of notification. pay non lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 2nd respondent to pass award and pay compensation considering the fact of conversion of subject land into non agriculture land and determine the market value of the subject land Rs.17500/- per square yard as given by Respondent no.8 at the date of publication of notification. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B S MANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 7 to 9: GP FOR REVENUE ‘<S> Counsel for the Respondent No.6:SMT. SODUM ANVESHA REPRESENTING M/S. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS LAW FIRM The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010198572022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0*0 [3332] ZJ} ■A FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO; 13038/2022 Between: Smt. Kandukuri Rama and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.B S MANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS LAW FIRM 2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: Questioning the order vide Arbitration No. 195 of 2019 dated 21.03.2022 passed by respondent No.5 holding that no interference is warranted with the Award No.46 of 2018 dated 05.11.2018 in respect of the petitioners, the present Writ Petition is filed. w 2 s Heard Sri Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, 2. Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for official respondents and Smt Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel representing Chaudhary & Chaudhary Associates and Solicitors appearing for respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that respondent No.5 while passing award has not considered that the land acquired falls in Industrial land use though the material placed would clearly shows that the subject land is falls in commercial land use. Particularly the letter issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority vide E Office No. 11024/29/2018/Ll, dated 29.09.2018 which allegedly shows that the subject property falls in industrial land use. The authority has not dealt the said aspect in a right perspective, as such it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the Arbitrator for consideration on that point itself. On the other hand, Smt Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel 4. appearing for National Highway Authority of India-respondent No.6 contended that the petitioners cannot question the Award before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is not maintainable and it has to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 3 Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Government Pleader submitted in similar lines as that of respondent No.6 and further contended that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the authority has not dealt the material placed by the petitioners in a right perspective, a liberty may be given to the Arbitrator to pass orders in a time bound 5. manner. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. 7. The main ground that has been urged and raised before this Court is that the letter issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority shows that the land in survey No. 1652 of Sunkarametta village, R.S.Ward, Anakapalli Mandal falls under industrial zone. However, the said aspect was not answered nor given any reason for discarding the proceedings dated 29.09.2018 issued by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority by the arbitrator and thereby came to a conclusion that the subject land does not fall within the industrial use. Perusal of the said document would indicate that the land in survey No. 1652 of Sunkarametta village is earmarked partly fallen in industrial land use and 80 meters wide road (NH16) is passing through the survey number as per sanctioned VMR Master Plan. 8. The order of the Arbitrator dated 21.03.2022 at conclusion portion reads as follows: n 4 s “In this case, there is no evidence on record to show that the subject land is notiifed under APMRUDA Act 2016 as Commercial/Industrial Zone and the petitioners have paid the CLU charges, even though the land is alleged to have been Notified as Commercial/Industrial (Non- agricultural) Zone by VMRDA under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region & Urban Development Authorities Act 2016 & Rules as rightly contended by the 2”^ respondent. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be treated that the land falls within the ambit of Commercial area for the purpose of arriving market value of the land under Acquisition. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to get the market value of the land under Acquisition as if a commercial land as discussed supra. A perusal of the Award goes to show that the CALA & Spl.Dy. Collector (LA), NH-16 has followed the Guide lines and provisions laid down under 26(1) of RFCTLARR Act 2013 while arriving market value of the land under acquisition and awarded the compensation in respect of the subject land and things attached to the land as per the RFCTLARR Act 2013. Hence, no interference is warranted with the Award No.46/2018 dt.05.11.2018 in respect of the petitioners. Accordingly, I uphold the Award as far as the petitioners is concerned. ” 9. Perusal of the order would goes to show that the Arbitrator at one breath stated that no evidence was placed on record to show that the said land was notified as commercial land and in another breath it r 5 4$ was stated that the petitioners have paid the CLU charges, though the land is alleged to have been notified as commercial zone by VMRDA under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region & Urban Development Authorities Act 2016 & Rules. There is ambiguity in the said finding. even 10. In view of the above, there is some force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Arbitrator has not taken into consideration the letter issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority dated 29.09.2018. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the aspect of whether the petitioners’ land falls within the part of industrial land and the other aspects of the issue. In these circumstances, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the Arbitrator & Collector concerned for passing fresh orders by taking into consideration the letter issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority dated 29.09.2018. use or not 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of respondent No.5 in Arbitration No. 195/2019 dated 21.03.2022 in respect of petitioner and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator & Collector concerned, the Arbitrator 85 Collector shall adjudicate on the aspect whether the letter issued by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority vide E Office No.11024/29/2018/Ll, dated 29.09.2018 is sufficient to come to conclusion that the subject w 6 land is commercial land or not and pass orders afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned and after considering the documents placed by the petitioners, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to place before the Arbitrator the relevant material to show that the subject land falls under the commercial/industrial use. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDI- K. TAT.A RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR / cSECTION OFFICEPv To. 1. The Principal secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Acquisition, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P. 2. The Joint Collector-Cum-Competant authority. Land Acquisition, (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH-38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Special Deputy Collector- Land Acquisition, NH-16 (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH-38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 4. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways, Central Secretary, New Delhi. 5. The District Collector and Arbitrator, Collector Office, Visakhapatnam 6. The Project Director, NHAI, NH-16 (Anandapuram to Anakapalli, SH- 38), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli. 8. The Sub Registrar, Anakapalli SRO, Anakapalli District. 9. The District Collector, Anakapalli. 10. One CC to Sri B S Mani Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to M/s. Chaudhary and Chaudhary Advocates and Solicitors Law Firm [OPUC] 12. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High court of A.P. [OPUC] 13. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 14. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 15. Three CD Copies TF f I HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.13038 of 2022 ’ s: 0 7 FEB 2C23 o Co ^ Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS