1 APHC010260642016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 41298/2016 Between: SiddaAdinarayana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) The Court made the following Order: The lands of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.4.375 in R.S.No.69, Ac.0.41 cents in R.S.No.71/3, Ac.0.74 cents in R.S.No.71/10 and Ac.0.01 cents in R.S.No.89/1 belonging to the 1st petitioner, an extent of Ac.4.92 cents in R.S.No.79/1 belonging to the 2nd petitioner, an extent of 0.25.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.75/4 and 1.10.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.75/4 and 1.10.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.88/4 belonging to the 3rd petitioner and an extent of Ac.2.18 cents in R.S.No.101/1 and Ac.1.48 cents of land in R.S.No.101/2 2 belonging to the 4th petitioner, all situated in Devipatnam, (Bit-2) Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District were acquired for the purpose of submersion in the Polavaram Irrigation Project. The notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is said to have been published on 01.01.2014 when the Right for Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 30 of 2013’) came into force. The petitioners had made various representation to the AcquisitionAuthority for fixation of fair compensation amount. However, the Acquisition Authority without taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioners, had passed an Award, dated 04.04.2016, in Award No.9/2015. The said Award was served on 12.07.2016. 2. The petitioners had thereafter approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.32367 of 2016, dated 26.09.2016, contending that the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Authority was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 and that the same requires to be set aside. It is also stated that a request had been made for referring the matter to the authority, under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013. A learned Sigle Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by an order, dated 26.09.2016, in W.P.No.32367 of 2016, had directed the respondents 2 to 4 therein to refer the representation, dated 10.06.2016, filed by the petitioners to 3 the Authority constituted under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 3. The petitioners again approached this Court, by way of this Writ petition contending that the authorities had not referred the matter to the authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court directly. 4. The petitioners contend that the Award, dated 04.04.2016, requires to be set aside on the ground that the acquisition authority, while computing the compensation payable to the petitioners had not followed Section 26(1)(b). The petitioners contend that the land in question falls in an agency area and the respondents fixed an artificially low floor price of Rs.2 ½ lakhs per acre under Section 26(3) and had determined inadequate compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners apart from reiterating the aforesaid contentions has also submitted that the respondents have not paid the compensation fixed by the authorities, to the petitioners till today. The learned counsel submits that the authorities are unwilling to pay the said compensation unless the petitioners give full and final settlement and do not claim receipt of the said amounts under protest. 6. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the land in question falls in an agency area where there is a bar on sale of properties due to which market value cannot be ascertained. The 4th 4 respondent contends that on account of this restriction, the provisions of Section 26(3) of Act 30 of 2013 were invoked and a floor price of Rs.2 ½ lakhs per acre was fixed after a thorough consideration of all the factors in the area. The 4th respondent contends that in such circumstances there can be no complaint of non-adherence to Section 26(2) (b) of Act 30 of 2013. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there have been sales in the neighbouring areas and such sales can always be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at a proper compensation. As an example, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that lands in an adjacent village had been acquired by fixing a market value of Rs.3 ½ lakhs per acre. 8. This Court cannot go into the question of what the actual market value is or what would be the market value of the neighbouring lands in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Inview of the fact that a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of an order in W.P.No.32367 of 2016, dated 26.09.2016, had already directed the respondents to refer the question of enhancement of compensation to the authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 and in view of the fact that such a reference does not appear to have been made, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to refer the issue of payment of enhanced 5 compensation, as set out in the representation of the petitioners, dated 10.06.2016, to the authority constituted under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 10. 10. Needless to say, the compensation which has already been fixed in relation to the aforesaid lands, shall be paid to the petitioners, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, without insisting that the same should be received without protest. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 41298/2016 Dt: 10.04.2025 RJS