IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010247992025 0;i'S WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12828 OF 2025 Between; 1. Vellanki Satya Swaroop, S/o. Venkata Krishnaya, aged about 63 R/o Pushpaleelanagar, Tangallamudi, Eluru, Eluru District. Andhra Pradesh. 2. Vellanki Sasikala, W/o.Vellanki Satya Swaroop, Aged about 60 R/o Pushpaleelanagar, Tangallamudi, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. years. years ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. District Collector, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional officer Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. TheTahsildar, PedavegiMandal Pedavegi, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not referring the case to the Specified Authority for enhancement of the compensation to the petitioners land in an extent of Ac 2.10 cents and of Ac 3.83 523 524/2 525 situated in venkatapuram village Eluru Block No. 3 is illegal arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the Act 30 /2013 14, 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the 3'^'^ respondent to refer the petitioners case to the Specified Authority. cents in R/S N/o and violate of article lA NO: 1 OF 202.*^ 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 3'^'^ Respondent to pass orders on the petitioner representations writ petition. REDDY dated 27.11.2023, pending disposal of the above Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S. APPADHARA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR I The Court made the following: ORDER REVENUE "0 APHC010247992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12828/2025 Between: Vellanki Satya Swaroop and Others AND ...PETITIONER{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.SAPPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER:- ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not referring the case to the Specified Authority for enhancement of the compensation to the petitioners land in an extent of Ac 2.10 cents and of Ac 3.83 cents in R/S N/o 523 524/2 525 situated in venkatapuram village Eluru Block No. 3 is illegal arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the Act 30 /2013 and violate of article 14, 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to refer the petitioners case to the Specified Authority and pass” 7 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 2. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. rd 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3 respondent, i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, acquired land of the petitioners admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.10 cents and Ac.3.83 cents in R.S. Nos. 523, 524/2, and 525 situated at Venkatapuram Village, Eluru Block No.3, for the purpose of construction of houses under housing scheme. The acquisition proceedings were already completed, and an award was also passed. As per the award the petitioners have received the compensation amount under protest. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners requested the 3'^ respondent, by way of representation dated 23.08.2018, to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the subject land. However, despite such request, for one reason or other, the respondents did not refer the matter till date. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. w ■-0 3 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 28.05.2025 issued by the 3'^ respondent, wherein it is stated as follows;- “/ further humbly submit that as regards to the referring the matter to the competent authority for enhancement of land compensation to the lands in question as prayed by the writ petitioners before the Hon’ble court for which the connected records are verified and the said representations which have not been referred to the competent authority as per the L.A.Act 2013 at that time, will be referred now to the competent authority by duly adhering the procedure laid down under the provisions of L.A.Act, 2013 and I humbly request to condone the delay in referring the case before the competent authority regarding enhancement of compensation as requested by the petitioners before this Hon’ble court”. The learned Assistant Government Pleader specifically 5. stated that, in view of the clear and categorical instructions submitted by the 3^"^ respondent who is the competent authority to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), the request of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation in respect of the <r 4 subject land will consider as early as possible, in accordance with law. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the land belongs to the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose in the year 2018, and the petitioners had received the award amount under protest. It is further observed that the petitioners, immediately after receipt of award amount submitted a representation dated 23.08.2018, as required under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), seeking for reference of the matter for enhancement of compensation. Upon such request, it is the statutory obligation of the respondents to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Act within a reasonable time. Failure to do so would amount to negligence on the part of the respondents. 7. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that such a reference under Section 64 of the Act, shall be made within 5 .t ^ a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the request from the landlord/applicant. It is also clarified that the application or representation should be submitted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the award amount. It is an admitted fact that, in the present case, the petitioner submitted the representation within the prescribed time, in compliance with Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). 8. Therefore, the delay in referring the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, is particularly on the part of the respondents and the same cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to have the said \ application/representation to be considered without being penalized for the delay, as the delay was caused solely by the official respondents. 9. Hence, in view of the above reasons, facts, and circumstances, the 3rd respondent is hereby directed to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) within a period of one month from the 1 6 date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such reference, the competent authority shall proceed as if the application had been submitted by the petitioners within the prescribed time and shall dispose of the same within a reasonable period, since there is too much delay on part of the respondents to pass orders. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No 10. costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd./- N NAGAiVSMA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. District Collector Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional officer, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahsildar, Pedavegi Mandal, Pedavegi, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 ORDER WP No.12828 of 2025 )5 0 >i JIIL 2025 ^^JsSfSPATCW^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS