i APHC010226872020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) X THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ■ : 7' 73" Xii O \- ■ PRESENT . ■ .1 /■>' 7 '^3 v: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14961 OF 2020 Between: 1. Vakacherla Narayana Rao, S/o Subba Rayadu, Aged 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Vakacherla Narasimhulu, S/o Subba Rayadu, Aged 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 3. Vakacherla Subba Rao, S/o Narasimhulu, aged 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 4. Vakacherla Satyanarayana Rao, S/o V. Narasimhulu, Aged 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 5. Vakacherla Laxmi, W/o Late Krishna Rao, Aged 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, 6. V. Mallikarjuna, S/o Late Narasimhulu, Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, / 7. V. Narasimhulu, S/o Narasimhulu, Aged 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Handal, YSR Kadapa District. 8. V. Narasimhulu, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 9. V. Nagaraju Gupta, S/o Late Vakacherla Subba Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Railway Kodur Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kodur, YSR Kadapa 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 pass order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring Petitioners land in an extent of Ac.11.75 cents comprising in Sy.No. 953/1, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac.2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B an extent of Ac.0.08 cents towards to provide House sites to the weaker sections of the society and also an extent of Ac. 9.43 cents covering Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No.953/1 an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 an extent of Ac. 0.95 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents situated at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District towards Market Yard and not paying compensation till today as bad, illegal, arbitrary and highly unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violation of Art. 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation for the acquired lands belonging to the Petitioners with interest prevailing in the market from the date of acquisition till today. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pay compensation with interest at the prevailing market value for acquired lands of the Petitioners for providing House sites and Market Yard total extent of Ac. 11.75 cents comprising in Sy.No. 953/1, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B an extent of Ac.0.08 cents towards to provide House sites to the weaker sections of the society and also an extent of Ac. 9.43 cents covering Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No.953/1 an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 an extent of Ac. 0.95 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents situated at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District by fixing time frame for payment of compensation. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14961/2020 APHC010226872020 [3505] Between: 1.VAKACHERLA NARAYANA RAO RAYADU, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/0 RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR MANUAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.VAKACHERLA NARASIMHULU RAYADU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/0 RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR MANUAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. S/0 SUBBA S/0 SUBBA 3.VAKACHERLA SUBBA RAO,, S/0 NARASIMHULU, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RAILWAY KODUR R/0 AGED 60 YEARS RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. S/0 V. OCC. 4.VAKACHERLA SATYANARAYANA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, NARASIMHULU, AGRICULTURE, R/O RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, YSR KADAPA MANDAL, RAILWAY KODUR DISTRICT. 5.VAKACHERLA LAXMI,, W/0 LATE KRISHNA RAO, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RAILWAY KODUR R/O AGED 48 YEARS, RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, ij 2 MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 6.V. MALLIKARJUNA AGED 46 YEARS, RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, 7.V. NARASIMHULU,, S/0 NARASIMHULU, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR HANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 8.V. NARASIMHULU,, S/0 LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE KODUR VILLAGE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 9.V. NAGARAJU GUPTA,, S/O LATE VAKACHERLA SUBBA RAO, AGRICULTURE, R/0 RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, DISTRICT. S/O LATE NARASIMHULU, OCC. AGRICULTURE RAILWAY KODUR 1) R/0 R/O RAILWAY RIO RAILWAY RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. YSR KADAPA ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. REVENUE VELAGAPUDI, 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT, KADAPA. YSR KADAPA 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KODUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to pass order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring Petitioners land in an extent of Ac.11.75 cents comprising in Sy.No. 953/1, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac.2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B extent of Ac.0.08 cents towards to provide House sites to the weaker sections of the society and also an extent of Ac. 9.43 cents covering Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No.953/1 an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 extent of Ac. 0.95 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents situated at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District towards Market Yard and not compensation till today as bad, illegal, arbitrary and highly unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violation of Art. 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation for the acquired lands belonging to the Petitioners with interest prevailing in the market from the date of acquisition till today and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2020 an an an paying 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 pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation with interest at the 4 prevailing market value for acquired lands of the Petitioners tor providing House sites and Market Yard 11.75 cents total extent of Ac. comprising in Sy.No. 953/1 an extent of Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 extent of Ac. 1.21 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A 2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B an an extent of Ac. an extent of Ac.0.08 cents towards to provide House sites to the weaker the society and also an extent of Ac. 9.43 cents Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 sections of - covering cents, Sy.No.953/1 an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 an extent of Ac. 0.95 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents situated at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.14961 OF 2020 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that originally the lands in Sy.No.953/1 in an extent of Ac.2.10, Sy.No.952 an extent of Ac.3.14 cents, Sy.No.954/1, an extent of 1. Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No.955/1-A an extent of Ac.2.15 cents, Sy.No.954/1-B an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, totally admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 11.75 cents and an extent of Ac.3.14 cents in Sy.No.952, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.No.953/1, an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.954/1, an extent of Ac. 1.01 cents in Sy.No.955/1-A, an extent of Ac.2.15 cents in Sy.No.955/1-A and an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in Sy.No.955/1-C totally admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.43 cents in Kodur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa, belonged to their ancestors. 2. It is further case of the petitioners that the possession of the above lands were taken by invoking 6 urgency clause under Section 17 of Land 1894 for providing house sites to the Acquisition Act weaker sections and also for setting up market yard. It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter, award was passed on 28.03.1984 vide award Nos.4, 5, 6, 7/83-84. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Vakacherla Subbarayudu and two others one Sri filed writ petition vide W.P.No.8711 of 1984 questioning the acquisition of the urgency clause. Initially the maintain status-quo obtaining as on 30.05.1984 by order dated 22.06.1984. subject lands invoking respondents therein were directed to It is their further case that despite the interim order, respondents therein have taken the possession of the lands and questioning the same, the petitioners herein filed a Contempt Case in C.C.No.118 of 1984 and upon hearing the parties, the said contempt 26.10.1984 stating that award was already passed on Subsequently, the writ case was closed on 28.03.1984. petition vide W.P.No.8711 of 1984 was also closed by order dated 22.01.1986. 7 4. It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter they have approached the 3''^ respondent to pay compensation for the subject lands and in turn they were informed that the files pertaining to the subject lands were burnt in Arson and they are taking steps to reconstruct the same. Thereafter, one Sri Vakacherla Krishna Rao, S/o. Vakacherla Subbarayudu filed writ petition vide W.P.No. 16901 of 2007 before this Court seeking to pay compensation towards his share as against the subject lands. 5. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner therein Sri Vakacherla Krishna Rao died on 14.01.2014 as such the said writ petition was closed by order dated 09.07.2018. 6. It is further case of the petitioners that in the said writ petition the Tahsildar through letter dated 14.10.2008 furnished written instructions to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the subject lands were acquired and award Nos.4 to 9, dated 28.03.1984 were passed. It is further 8 stated that the petitioner has not taken compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer. A copy of letter dated 14.10.2008 is filed along with the present writ petition show that the petitioners were not paid compensation. to 7. It is further stated that they approached the respondents for payment of compensation and they also issued legal notice dated 02.03.2020 to the respondents and despite receiving the said notice, no steps were taken to pay compensation to the petitioners and questioning the said action the present writ petition is filed. 8. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter affidavit admitting that the subject lands acquired and awards were passed on 28.03.1984 vide Award Nos.4 to 7/83-84. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the said land was acquired for providing house sites to schedule casts and schedule tribes and at present the subject lands are covered with residential houses were popularly called as Samatha Nagar. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the compensation is paid to the petitioners as per awards dated 28.03.1984. It is further 9 stated that the copies of Award No.4 to 7/83-84 and files pertaining to the subject lands have been burnt in the public agitation that took place on 17.08.1984. The 3'^'^ respondent also filed additional counter 9. affidavit admitting the averments made in support of the writ affidavit and requested this Court to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 10. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 11. Perused material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the subject lands were acquired for providing house site pattas to weaker sections and to set up market yard in Kodur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the subject lands were taken by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though, the original land owners filed writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause, the said writ petition vide W.P.No.8711 of 10 1984 was closed by order dated were already passed. 22.01.1986 as awards 13. It is pertinent to note that one of the land losers filed writ petition No. 16901 compensation towards his share of 2007 seeking to in which the 4*^ pay respondent furnished instructions through 14.10.2008, whereunder it letter dated was categorically admitted that lands admeasuring to an extent Ac. 11.75 cents and an extent of Ac.9.43 cents of Koduru Village were acquired and the petitioners therein did not receive the compensation. 14. Though, initially a counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that paid to the petitioners, subsequently additional affidavit was filed pass appropriate orders in the matter. compensation was counter on 13.09.2003 requesting this Court to 15. It IS pertinent to note that, nothing is placed on record to show that compensation is paid to the petitioners or to their ancestors in respect of the subject lands and the same is also evident on perusal of letter dated 13.09.2008 addressed by the 4*^ respondent. 11 In view of the same, it is clear that having 16. acquired the lands belonging to the petitioner, the respondents for the reasons best known to them did not pay compensation. On perusal of the counter affidavit it is presumed that the compensation could not paid to the petitioners in view of the fact that the records pertaining to the subject lands were burnt during the agitation that took place on 17.08.1984. Further, the respondents have not taken any steps to see that the compensation is paid to the original owners or to the petitioners. Though, it is argued by the counsel for the 17. petitioner that compensation has to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Act, 30 of 2013, the request of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in view of Section 24 of the Act, 30 of 2013 which reads as under: “24. Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapses in certain cases 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),- (a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or 12 (b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealded. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” said 18. On a reading of Section 24(1 )(b), it is clear that if an award is passed under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, all the such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Act as if, the said act has not been repealed. In the instant case, admittedly Award was passed on 28.03.1984 therefore the Award passed under the said Act shall remain to continue. 19. Further, the benefit conferred under Sub Section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 30 of 2013 cannot be given 13 to the petitioners in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Indore Development , it is held as under; Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others "In re Question I: Section 24(2) - Lapse of acquisition-Twin requirements are cumulative and conjunctive in nature - For the 1894 Act acquisition proceedings to lapse, possession should not have been taken and compensation should not have been paid within the specified period of five years. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case 1-1-2014, the date of the award is not made as on commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. The word "or" used in Section 24(2) between^ possession and compensation has to be read as "nor" or as "and". The deemed lapse of and acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. case obstante clause. Section 24 begins with a overriding all other provisions of the 2013 Act including 114 of the 2013 Act, dealing with repeal and of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, the non Section saving. In terms general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, except otherwise provided in the Act, has been saved. 1(2020) 8 see 129 14 % initiated under the 1894 Act thP P''°^^^dings made under SectL ^tH.n been /ync/er Secf/on is made th^n i5r.S^«."SSiiS'S non of compensation ca/ves out an exception to Section 24(1)(b), where the award has been passed and thl n'hwK-^^r^^ Pend/ng, but in such proceedings physical possession of the land has not bLn taken compensation has not been paid, proceedina^ Jh.u lapse. There are twin requirements for the lapse- firstly physical possession has not been taken and secondiv compensation has not been paid. secondly, or .. Positive conditions separated by "or" are read in ■yT"‘Z Z ~Z by h J construed as cumulative and "or" is read as not or and", if there are two negative conditions the expression "or" has to be read as conjuncitve and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled. 1 U Chunibhai Dajibha v.Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar, (1965) 2 SCR 328: AIR 1965 SC UST^PunaTb Produce & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 2 SCC 540 RJoltsrrir 1927 All ER Rep 195 (CA), approved. As regards the collation of the Section 24(2), two words used in negative conditions have been prescribed. Thus, even if one condition is satisfied Act retd^'l mth logically flows from the 1894 Act read with the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Any other interpretation would entail illogical 15 results. That apart, if the rule of interpretation with respect to two negative conditions qualified by "or" is used, then "or" should be read as "nor" or "and". Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the old law, under Section 24(2) it is only if both steps have not been taken i.e. neither physical possession is taken, nor compensation is paid, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. ” In view of the said Judgment, the petitioners are 20. entitled to receive compensation in terms of award dated 28.03.1984 together with interest as provided for under Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly- allowed and the respondents are directed to pay compensation in terms of Award Nos.4 to 7/83-84, dated 28.03.1984 together with interest as per Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is needless to mention that the compensation together with interest shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly-allowed. No order as to costs. 1 16 As sequel, pending miscellaneous shall stand closed. applications if any Sdi- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To 1- The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3, The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Land YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kodur, YSR Kadapa District. 5. One CC to Sri K Venugopal Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Land Acquisition High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies , Velagapudi, Acquisition Officer, Rajampet TF % HIGH COURT DATED:24/07/2025 ITCr ORDER WP NO. 14961 OF 2020 O ? ’ MIG 2m Current Section , PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS