APHC010006532021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 500/2021 Between: Dondapati Saidamma (died) and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMESH N Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The case of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are trying to acquire their land to an extent of Ac.2.53 cents situated in Sy.No.50 of Ramachandrunipeta Village, Jaggayyapeta Mandal, Krishna District, without paying compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 2. Heard Sri N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the deceased petitioner No.1 got the subject property by way of registered gift deed in the year 1970, pursuantly she obtained pattadar passbook by entering her name in all the revenue records and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the revenue authorities are trying to acquire the subject land under the guise of construction of a burial ground without paying compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Act, 2013) and without following due process of law. If the said aciton is materialized, the petitioners rights would be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that at present the subject land is lying uncultivated and the petitioners are not in possession of the same. Moreover, there are no proposals for the acquistion of land in the said area. As such, the averments made in the writ petition are false and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 6. The main ground that has been raised and urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 got the subject property by way of registered gift deed dated 12.03.1970. The record shows that pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued by the revenue authorities in favour of her to the said effect. In the counter, it was categorically stated that the subject land is vacant on ground and there are no proposals to acquire the said land. However, when the petitioner’s name has been recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued, it shows that they are in possession of the property. Therefore, whether the subject land is vacant or cultivated, does not matter. Further, it is needless to observe that if at all the respondent authorities want any private land for public purpose, they have to acquire the same as per the Act, 2013. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing the following order: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the subject property expect under due process of law.” 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 03rd January, 2025 RKS