IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND and TWENTY FIVE I PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21709 OF 2020 Between: 1. B Vijaya Kumari, W/o. China Babu, Aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.58-12- 822, 4*'" Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 2. P Prakasamma (DIED), W/o. Ananda Rao, R/o. D.No.58-12-821, 4 Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 3. Choppala Mary Rani, D/o. P. Ananda Rao, Aged 46 years, R/o D.No.58-12-821, 4‘^ Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 4. Bulla Hepsi, D/o. P.Ananda Rao, Aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.58-12-821, 4*^^ Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 5. Peddipaga Lakshmaiah, S/o. P. Ananda Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o. D.No.58-12-821, 4*^ Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. th (Petitioner Nos 3 to 5 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased 2"*^ petitioner as per the Court's Order dt.15.11.2024 in I.A.No. 01 of 2024) ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Guntur District. 3. The LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Guntur East, Guntur District. 5. Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur 6. Special Deputy Tahsildar, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur. 7. Divisional Railway Manager, south Central Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Personnel Branch rail Vikas Bhavan, Guntur- 522006. 8. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South Central Railway, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2"'^ Respondent in not disbursing the compensation amount in pursuant to the award in LA Award No.3 of 2019 on the file of the Respondent and contemplating to dispossess the Petitioners property in land of extent of 75.43sq.mts located in D.No545/B2B1 and a land of extent 78.17sq.mts as illegal, arbitrary, injustice and violative of Articles 14 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to disburse the award amount in LA Award No.3 of 2019 on the file of the 3'^'^ Respondent into the bank accounts of the Petitioner before dispossessing the Petitioners from the subject property in land of extent of 75.43sq.mts located in D.No545/B2B1 and a land of extent 78.17sq.mts located in D.No545/B2B1. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property in 75.43sq.mts located in D.No545/B2B1 and a land of extent 78.17sq.mts located in D.No545/B2B1 without paying the compensation award n LA Award No.3 of 2019 on the file of the 3 Respondent into the bank accounts of the Petitioner. rd jf lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Guntur District. 3. The LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. B Vijaya Kumari, W/o. China Babu, Aged 45 years, R/o. D.No.58-12- 822, 4‘^ Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 2. P. Prakasamma W/o. Ananda Rao, R/o. D.No.58-12-821, 4‘^ Lane, Veeraiah Chowdary Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS 3. The Tahsildar, Guntur East, Guntur District. 4. Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur 5. Special Deputy Tahsildar, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur. 6. Divisional Railway Manager, south Central Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Personnel Branch, rail Vikas Bhavan, Guntur- 522006. 7. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. 8. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South Central Railway, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS 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 dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim orders dated 20-11-2020 in IA.No.1 of 2020 in WP.No.21709 of 2020. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI RAVI TEJA GUDE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE AND GP FOR LAND ACQUISATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8: Mrs. M. UMA DEVI, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER w - APHC010327442020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0)^0 [3458] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 21709/2020 Between: B Vijaya Kumari and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.RAVI TEJAGUDE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. 3.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 4.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Ravi Teja Gude, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The writ petition is filed challenging the inaction of the 2. respondents in paying the compensation to the petitioners, despite passing of final award determining the compensation payable to the petitioners. 2 1 'I It is contended that the 1®* petitioner has purchased an extent of land measuring 75.43 Sq.Mtrs with an AC sheet roof structure in 3. Sy.No.545/B2B1, of Guntur Town and Mandal, Guntur District, vide registered sale deed document No.3251 of 1999. Similarly, the 2^^ petitioner purchased an extent of 78.17 sq.mts with an AC sheet roof structure through a Possessory Sale Agreement dated 26.06.1995. Later, the sale deed was executed vide registered document No.8349 of 2008. It is contended that the Competent Authority & Special Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur, had given permission vide proceedings dated 11.05.1999, pursuant to the notice issued by the petitioner’s vendor Smt. Rahamunnisa Bibi for alienation of the land in favour of the 1®^ petitioner. The said lands were acquired for the purpose of doubling the electrification between Guntur-Tenali stations on the requisition of South 4. Central Railway, Guntur. The final award under the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act”) was passed. However, no compensation was disbursed to the petitioners. When the petitioners were asked to vacate the premises, they have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. This Court vide order dated 20.11.2020 granted interim directions not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. It is contended by the respondents that the lands were declared excess lands and the Special Deputy Tahsildar, ULC Wing on .V i 3 6^^ 10.03.2006 has taken possession of the subject lands. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after issuing notice under the provisions of Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), the property was sold by the vendor, in favour of the 1®‘ petitioner. It is further contended that with the repeal of the ULC Act, since the petitioners are in possession of the subject properties, in terms of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the repeal of the Principal Act shall not affect the vesting of any property under Section 10 (3) of the ULC Act, possession of which has not been taken over by the Government. Since the possession of the subject lands have not been taken over by the authorities, in view of the repeal of the ULC provisions, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of the compensation. In support of her contention relies on the following decisions: i) the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram^ ii) the decision of this Court in the case of N.Linga Rao and others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^ iii) the decision of this Court in the case of J.Sarada Govardhini Vs. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling^. 'AIR 2013 SC 1793 '2017 (6) AID 270 '2017 (5) AID 523 4 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. It is discernible from the record that the petitioners were paid compensation for the structures, the same would indicate that the petitioners were in physical possession of the subject properties as on the date of notification issued for land acquisition. With the repeal of the ULC Act, unless the case falls under the saving clauses of the repeal Act, the respondents not justified in contending that the subject lands are excess lands under the provisions of ULC Act, and deny compensation to the lands. It is pertinent to observe that in respect of the 1®* petitioner, her vendor has transferred the land in her favour after issuing notice to the ULC authorities. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram, wherein it is observed as under: \ are 'Effect of the Repeal Act 38. Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of the Repeal Act 15 of 1999 Sub-Section (3) to Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed the Act 33 of 1976. The Object and Reasons of the Repeal Act has already been referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment. Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case. on 39. The mere vesting of the land under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub- Section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under Sub-Section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations. ♦y': 5 the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the Respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. ”. This Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation. 8. The respondents are therefore directed to release the compensation determined under the award, forthwith, but not later than four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Acquisition) State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Guntur District. 3. The LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Guntur East, Guntur District. 5. The Joint Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur. 6. The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur 7. The Divisional Railway Manager, south Central Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Personnel Branch, rail Vikas Bhavan, Guntur- 522006. 8. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South Central Railway, Guntur. 9. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. 10.One CC to Sri Ravi Teja Gude, Advocate [OPUC] 11 .Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 12. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 13. One CC to Mrs. M. Uma Devi, Central Govt. Counsel (OPUC) 14.Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT < DATED:09/01/2025 ORDER (P WP.No.21709of 2020 5 2 8 JAN 2025 m ^2:^ . Current Section . ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS