KONDAPU APPALA RAMA SWAMY REDDY v. THE STATE OF AP
WP/378/2025 · 2025-01-10
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2571 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2571 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 378 OF 2025 Between: Kondapu Appala Rama Swamy Reddy, S/o K Rama Murthy Reddy, Aged about 75 years, R/o Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. D.No.1-19,Gudupuvalasa Village, ...PETITIONER AND
1. The State of AP, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat of A.P., Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, at Vizianagara
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Revenue Division, Vizianagaram District. 4. The Tahasildar, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) Cum Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), Bhogapuram International Greenfield Airport, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. m.
...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the“circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in making attempts to dispossess the petitioner from petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac 0.76 cts in Sy No. 54/5 of Gudepuvalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District without issuing notice, without following due process of law, without acquiring the lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules 2014 and pending the ROR Appeal Appeal No. 49 vide Rc No. 319 of 2017 before 3 respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and opposed to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. may in 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 grant interim orders directing respondents 2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from petitioners land to an extent of Ac 0.76 cents in Sy No. 54/5 of Gudepuvalasa Village, Bhogapuram Mandal Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI T.V.SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER
1 [3328] THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT STICE GANNAMANENl RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 378/2^ APHC010004492025 IN sgsr I >' THE HONOURABLE SRI JU '“OAPU APPALA RAMA SWAMV VU LAGe'^BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND AP VEL^APUDl, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICE district collector, VIZIANAGARAM VIZIANAGARAM. uc 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM REVENUE DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. BHOGAPURAM MANDAL
1. district, at 2.THE VIZIANAGARAM
4. THE TAHAS ILDAR district. 5. THE SPECIAL ^Q^^gHoGAPURAMTNTERNAT^ SrELD ZpOR?.ThOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM district. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner. 1.T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S);
1 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER: Heard Smt. TV. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for all the Respondents. 2. The facts on record would indicate that the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has issued the Proceedings bearing Rc.No.706/2016/LPDT/ dated 18.03.2017 (Ex.P.3). The relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:
“In the result and for the afore said facts and reasons, am inclined to believe that the original assignee has sold the assigned land and the present transferee has acquired the land in contravention of section 3 of the POT Act, as such I hereby order to resume the land measuring Ac.0.76 Cts.in Sy.No. 54-5 of Gudepuvalasa village to government for public purpose I.e. for establishment of International Green Field Airport at Bhogapuram as provided u/s.4 (1) of the POT Act duly amended by Act 8 of 2007. The Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor are hereby directed to take possession of the above land from the transferee under cover of panchanama and report compliance.”
3.
It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the said Order dated 18.03.2017 has been challenged by way of an Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (Respondent No.3) and that the said RDO had issued Notice to the concerned parties on 05.07.2017. It is the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the said Appeal is still pending without any progress.
Learned Counsel submits that the Official Respondents are now interfering with the peaceful possession of the Writ Petitioner. On query made by this Court whether any Interlocutory Application has been made by the Writ Petitioner before the RDO at the time of filing of the Appeal, learned Counsel has answered in the negative indicating that no such Interlocutory Application seeking stay of the impugned Order has be^en filed before the RDO.
3 Since the Order of the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) dated 18.03.2017 has not been stayed, as a matter of legal consequence, the Subordinate Authorities are duty bound to implement the Order since there is no stay or suspension of the Order passed by the Tahsildar dated
18.03.2017. Since there is no such Application pending before the appellate authority i.e., the RDO, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained. However, liberty is granted to the Writ Petitioner for approaching the appellate authority by way of appropriate proceedings.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
6.
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ; ASSISTANTREGISTRAR ‘ //TRUE COPY// \ \ SE To,
1. One CO to SRI T.V.Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
3. Two C.D Copies MBT
HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025
ORDER WP.No.378 of 2025 i ’ 0 JAN m a. Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS