APHC010313182025 /:■■>/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15627 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Jani, S/o.Munshi, Aged 70 years, Occ Agriculture-Coolie, R/o.Rajaka Bazar, Kukunoor Village Mandal, West Godavar District Presently Eluru District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, R R Scheme, OPP Andhra Hospitals, Gollapudi, Krishna District. 3. The District Collector, Eluru, Eluru District. 4. The Project Administrator Rehabilitation Resettlement Polavaram National Project, Godavari District. 5. The Project Officer, R R Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram, Eluru District. 6. The Tahsildar, Kukunuru Mandal, Eluru District Dhavaleswaram Rajahmahendravaram, East /■ ■ ■' ...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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in of the WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the the nature Respondents No.5 rejected the appeal of the petitioner name was shown in Serial No.736 with remarks as Non-Resident in contrary to the documents filed by the petitioner passed order in routine manner as per the report of the 6'*^ respondent as arbitrary, illegal against Art 14,19, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents No.3 to 5 by considering the documents filed by the petitioner by allow the appeal as prayed for. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of the order Respondents No.5 petitioner name was shown in Serial No.736 in Kukunoor A Block pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGARAJU N Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: APHC010313182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15627/2025 Between: AGED 70 YEARS, OCC R/O.RAJAKA BAZAR, MANDAL, WEST GODAVAR 1.SHA1K JANI, S/O.MUNSHI, AGRICULTURE-COOLIE, KUKUNOOR VILLAGE DISTRICT PRESENTLY ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND PRINCIPAL 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS LRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR SECRETARY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, R R SCHEME, OPP ANDHRA HOSPITALS, GOLLAPUDI, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. 4.THE PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR REHABILITATION RESETTLEMENT POLAVARAM NATIONAL PROJECT, DHAVALESWARAM, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5.THE PROJECT OFFICER, R R OFFICER, ITDA, K.R.PURAM, ELURU DISTRICT. 6.THE TAHSILDAR DISTRICT KUKUNURU MANDAL, ELURU ...RESPONDENT(S): .u . ■ • - P''3ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 suspend the operation of the order Respondents No.5 petitioner name was shown in Serial No.736 in Kukunoor A Block pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NAGARAJU N Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3 The Court made the following order; The present writ petition is filed declaring the order issued by the 5*'^ respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, contrary to the documents filed by him as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel 3. for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, the issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court in WP No. 11333 of 2020, dated 24.08.2021, wherein this Court categorically held that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground if the petitioner is non-resident of the particular place and it is also held \ that as per provisions, of Sub-Section(2) of Section 16 of the Act 30 of 2013 “shall include the particulars of the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements of each land owner and landless whose livelihood is primarily dependent on the land being acquired assumes importance. Hence, the respondents cannot reject the petitioner’s claim as he is non-resident. Hence, in the above said writ petition, the orders are set 4. aside and remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration 4 under the provisions of the Act without taking as non-resident as claim for rejection. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, as per the ratio decided by this Court in WP No. 11333 of 2020, dated 24.08.2021, within a period of eight (08) weeks frorti the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order in WP No. 11333 of 2020, dated 24.08.2021, to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, R R Scheme, OPP Andhra Hospitals, Gollapudi, Krishna District. 3. The District Collector, Eluru, Eluru District. 4. The Project Administrator Rehabilitation Resettlement Polavaram National Project, Dhavaleswaram, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. 5. The Project Officer, R R Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram, Eluru District. 6. The Tahsildar, Kukunuru Mandal, Eluru District 7. One CC to Sri. Nagaraju N, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP For Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP For Irri And Cad, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies. (Along with the copy of the order dt.24.08.2021 in W.P.11333/20) AL HIGH COURT DATED;01/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15627 OF 2025 ^01 SEP 2025 ntSectifnX^^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 11333 OF 2020 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming relief against the same respondents to declare the rejection of Rehabilitation and Resettlement package to the petitioners on the ground of Non-Residents, as illegal and arbitrary, and against the principles laid down under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act 30 of 2013) and consequently direct the respondents to accord the scheme of Rehabilitation and Resettlement package to the petitioners as affected under the Polavaram Project at Kukunoor Village. The petitioners are the owners of the land in Kukunoor Village, the same was acquired for Polavaram project. The Government formulated scheme called as Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package (for short “RR package”) for those who are affected in any land acquisition, as per the guidelines and the Act 30 of 2013. The said scheme is extended to all those who are resident of Kukunoor village and other villages which are affected due to the land acquisition in the Polavaram Irrigation Project and similarly the petitioners are also affected in the said project along with other residents of Kukunoor village. Respondent No.5 herein has released the list of such affected families and the names of the petitioners who are shown from Serial Nos.283 to 287, and in the column of remarks after fiel,d verification” it is shown as “non-resident rejected’. The scheme is meant for those who are actually affected in the village due to the land acquisition and dislocation from the MSM,J WPJ1333_2020 2 village and the petitioners are eligible for the said scheme, petitioners are the permanent residents of Kukunoor village holding household supply card, paying property tax to the local Government besides The possessing Aadhar Card, Voter Id and the petitioners submitted relevant documents to respondent No.3, but without considering the documentary evidence placed petitioners, the claim for rehabilitation and resettlement to the petitioners, such act of respondent No.3 i and violative of principles of natural justice and of 2013. on record by the was rejected IS illegal, arbitrary provisions of Act 30 During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions while drawing the attention of this Court to the definition of "family” under clause (m) of Section 2013, as such the petitioners with or without separate family for the purpose of the Act 30 of 2013, thereby they are entitled to claim benefits of RR package. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Act 30 of are adult members of either gender spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as a 15 of the Act 30 of 2013 contend that the authorities are required to hear objections from to any any land which has been notified under sub person interested in section (1) of Section 11 of the Act 30 of 2013, objections were called for and considered but no such by respondent No.3 required under Section 15 of the Act 30 of 2013, thereby committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and requested aside the order of rejection and direct the respondent the benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement petitioners. as to set No.3 to extend of the project to the MSM,J WP_11333_2020 3 / Respondent No.6/Tahsildar filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the petitioners earlier resided in D.No.2-117, Kukunoor Village and Mandal, West Godavari District and at the time of field enquiry of R&R Grievances held by the field staff of Tahsildar’s office, Kukunoor in the month of December, 2019 and January, 2020, since the door was locked and the petitioners were not available for enquiry even after repeated field visits by the enquiry team. Further, the burden of proof lies on the petitioners that they are eligible for rehabilitation and resettlement package in accordance with Act 30 of 2013. It is further submitted that, the writ petitioners were not available for field enquiry held in December, 2019 and January, The details of enquiry held by the Tahsildar, Kukunoor are available in the online website maintained for R&R Grievances and it the online data to view their 2020. is open to the petitioners to access status of the grievance petitions. However, the petitioners may file appeal before the R & R Officer and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., K.R Puram - the first Appellate Authority and the Project Administrator, PIP, Rajamahendravaram — second appellate authority against the rejection orders issued by the Tahsildar, Kukunoor and the R&R Officer respectively. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners did not avail the appellate remedy provided under the Act and filing a writ petition is nothing but abuse of process of law and on this ground also, respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition. MSM,J WP 11333 2020 4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that the petitioners are not residents of Kukunoor Village, which is a submergible area under the Polavaram Project to claim benefit of RR package. When the petitioners are not residents of D.No.2-117 of Kukunoor Village during enumeration, they are not entitled to claim benefits of the Act 30 of 2013. Apart from that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Water Resources (R&R) Department issued clarification for extending RR scheme in Memo.No.450483/R&R-A2/2017-l, dated 18.05.2017 that as per Section 3 (c) (i) of the Act 30 of 2013 “affected family” includes family whose land or other immovable property has been acquired and the affected family can be declared as Project Affected Family (for short “PAF”) even though the family is not doing agriculture and not depending on agriculture for their livelihood and not residing in the affected area. As per Section 16 (2) of the Act, the Administrator shall a based on the survey and census under section (1), prepare a draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, as prescribed which shall include particulars of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements of each land owner and landless whose livelihood is primarily dependent on the land being acquired and where resettlement of affected families is involved. In view of the said provision the head of the family (land owner) in affected area only can be treated as PAF, his wife, major sons and major daughters cannot be treated as separate PAF. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefits of RR scheme and requested to dismiss the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Kukunoor Village and they are major members of the family, thereby they are also entitled to claim benefit of R&R package and the list of MS1VI,J WP 11333 2020 5 beneficiaries is published by Respondent No.5 and the names of the petitioners are shown from Serial Nos.283 to 287. The benefits of the scheme were rejected to the petitioners on the ground that they are non-residents. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is; “Whether the petitioners being the major members of affected family are entitled to claim benefit of Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme in terms of Act 30 of 2013?” P OIN .T There is no dispute that the petitioners are major members of the family. But whether they are members of the affected family is to be determined while deciding their entitlement to claim benefits of the scheme. Section 3 (c) defined the word “affected family”, which is as follows: ‘affected family” includes— a family whose land or other immovable property has been Section 3 (c) (i) acquired; a family which does not own any land but a member or members of such family may be agricultural labourers, tenants including any form of tenancy or holding of usufruct right, share croppers or artisans or who may be working in the affected area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand affected by the acquisition of land; the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have lost any of their forest rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to acquisition of land; family whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or water bodies and includes gatherers of forest produce, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is affected due to acquisition of land; (ii) (iii) (iv) MSM.J WP_11333_2020 6 (V) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the — any of its schemes State Government or the Central Government under and such land is under acquisition; (Vi) family residing on any land in the urban areas for preceding or whose „ prior to the acquisition of affected by the acquisition of such land;” three years or more prior to the acquisition of the land primary source of livelihood for three the land is For the purpose of extending benefit, of the Act 30 of 2013 be adverted. The word faraily rt dedned under Cause Section 3 Of the Act 30 of 2013, which is as follows: the definition of family must necessarily under clause (m) of Section 3 (m) “family” includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children. minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him: Provided that widows, divorcees considered separate families. Explanation.—An adult of either spouse or children family for the and women deserted by families shall be gender with considered as or without a separate or dependents shall be purposes of this Act” The word “family” as defined includes only persons and their spouses, including minor children. minor brothers and minor sisters, family as they are Thus, it excludes major members of the constituted as independent family for the purpose of claiming to clause (m) of benefits under the Act im terms of explanation Section 3 of the Act 30 of 2013. The petitioners being majors having card, household supply card, voter identity card obtained Aadhar claiming to be residents scheme. But the of same village were denied the benefits of reason for denial is Government of Andhra Pradesh, the clarification issued by the Water Resources (R&R) Department for extending RR scheme i dated 18.05.2017 includes a family whose land acquired. In view of this m Memo.No.450483/R&R-A2/201 7-1, affected family” property has been provision, the family can be declared • According to the clarification. or other immovable as PAF MSM.J WP 11333 2020 7 due to acquisition of land even minimum extent is not indicated. But this clarification is contrary to the explanation to clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act 30 of 2013. But their claim was not rejected on the ground that the petitioners cannot be treated as family for the purpose of extending benefits, but rejected on the ground that they -residents of submergible area of the village due Polavaram non project. When the petitioners are the owners of the land or the land of the petitioners is acquired by the respondents, petitioners being major members of the same family shall be treated as separate family in view of explanation of clause (m) of Section 3 of the Act 30 of 2013 for extending benefits. Therefore, con-joint reading of definition of family under Section 3 (c) and (m) of the Act 30 of 2013, clear that the affected family includes a person, his or her minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent him exclusive of adult of either gender with or without spouse or it is spouse on children, since, the adult of either gender constitutes independent of this Act. Therefore, each major member family for the purpose whose land or the land of the joint family is acquired is entitled to claim benefits under the Act, but no distinction has been drawn between the residents and non-residents of the village to extend the best known to respondents, the benefits. Obviously, for the reasons claim of the petitioners for extension of benefits of RR package was non-residents. Therefore, non-residents though their rejected on the ground that they rejection on the ground that they lands are affected in the submergible area on account of Polavaram are are project is an illegality. MSM,J WP_11333_2020 8 Therefore, Respondent No.5 is directed to entire issue and decide as to their entitlement scheme and pass appropriate orders. re-examine the to the benefit of RR Though the list of beneficiaries of the scheme the writ petition disclosed the non residents’, but, what conclusion that the petitioners either to the petitioners filed voluminous documentary evidence filed along with reason for rejection of their claim i.e. are the reasons for arriving at such are non-residents are not known or to respondent No.5. In fact, the petitioners along with the writ petition during enquiry while hearing of 2013, but they was passed rejecting the claim of allegedly before respondent No.5 objections under Section 15 of the Act 30 considered and non-speaking order were not the petitioners. Hence, the rejection of the claim of the petitioners i, contrary to the principles of natural justice as Respondent No.5 did not record IS any reason except one word “Non-resident Therefore, the order is against the principles of natural i such this Court rejected. -- justice, as can interfere with such orders as the order is bereft of reasons, while 226 of the Constitution of India. exercising power of judicial review under Article The list was prepared and published by way of preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section Section 16 of the Act 30 11 of the Act 30 of 2013. of 2013 deals with rehabilitation and resettlement scheme by the is as follows: preparation of administrator, which Rehabilitation and Resettlement sLll LndurT Administrator for (a) particulars of lands and i affected family; immovable properties being acquired of each X MSM,J WP 11333 2020 9 livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired; a list of public utilities and Government buildings which are affected or likely to be affected, where resettlement of affected families is involved; details of the amenities and infrastructural facilities which are affected or likely to be affected, where resettlement of affected families is involved; and (e) details of any common property resources being acquired. (2) The Administrator shall, based on the survey and census under sub section (1), prepare a draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, as prescribed which shall include particulars of the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements of each land owner and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being acquired and where resettlement of affected families is involved— (i) a list of Government buildings to be provided in the Resettlement (ii) details of the public amenities and infrastructural facilities which are to be provided in the Resettlement Area. (3) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme referred to in sub section (2) shall include time limit for implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. (4) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme referred to in sub section (2) shall be made known locally by wide publicity in the affected area and discussed in the concerned Gram Sabhas or Municipalities. (5) A public hearing shall be conducted in such manner as may be prescribed, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing at the affected area: Provided that in case where an affected area involves more than one Gram Panchayat or Municipality, public hearings shall be conducted in every Gram Sabha and Municipality where more than twenty-five per cent of land belonging to that Gram Sabha or Municipality is being acquired: Provided further that the consultation with the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of 1996). (6) The Administrator shall, on completion of public hearing submit the draft Scheme for 17 Rehabilitation and Resettlement along with a specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector.” (b) (c) (d) Area; The language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act 30 of 2013 more particularly the words “shall include particulars of the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements of each land and landless whose livelihood is primarily dependent on the lands being acquired” assumes importance for interpretation to decide the entitlement of individual major members of the same owner family. In view of RR package/scheme and Section 16 of the Act 30 of 2013, if the petitioners are the owners or landless poor whose livelihood is primarily agriculture, they may be entitled to claim benefits of the scheme. Chapter V deals with rehabilitation and resettlement award and specified various columns in Section 31 (2) / . MSM,J WP_11333_2020 10 of the Act 30 of 2013, but this Court is not required to decide all these questions more particularly about the entitlement of petitioners being the owners of the land acquired and members of the affected family as discussed in the earlier major paragraphs. Since the order is bereft of any reasons, the order is set aside while directing Respondent No.5 to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law and the observations made herein above are only for the limited purpose of deciding the petition. present writ In the result. writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of rejection of Rehabilitation and Resettlement package to the petitioners on the ground of ' Non - resident’ while directing Respondent No.5 to pass reasoned order afresh, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 24.08.2021 Note; Note: issue copy in two weeks SP