IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATlgC^^^^^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) /t oc X MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20982 OF 2023 Between: B Rama Lakshmamma, W/o. Narayana Swamy, Aged 68 years, R/o. D.No. 1- 151/A, Kanampaili Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapur District. 3. The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 4. The Tahsildar, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District. 5. APIIC (Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation), APIIC Towers, Plot No 1, IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur, AP -522503. R5 Is Suo Moto impleaded in Writ Petition and Affidavit as Court Order dt.18.07.2024. per the ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the passing resumption order in RC.No. B/387/2019. dated 24.04.2021 i praying that in may a writ in the 4th Respondent in in respect of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents i Sy.No.167/5B and to in an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A Constitution as illegal, of India, contrary to Act 30 of 2013 and also contrary to the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 and consequently direct the Respondents pay compensation to the petitioner to in respect of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No. 167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013. to and lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District pending disposal of the above petition. writ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VV N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FOR APIIC) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010409612023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20982/2023 Between; AGED 68 1.B RAMA LAKSHMAMMA, W/0. NARAYANA SWAMY YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 1-151/A, KANAMPAILI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3.THE SUBCOLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IT PARK, R5 IS SUO MOTO 5.APIIC ANDHRA PRADESH CORPORATION, APIIC TOWERS, PLOT NO 1 MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, AP -522503. IMPLEADEDAS PER THE COURTORDER DT. 18.07.2024. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1.VVN NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3.J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FORAPIIC) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms.M.Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: 2. “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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in passing resumption order In Rc.No. B/387/2019 dated 24.04.2021 in respect of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents In Sy.No.167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India, contrary to Act 30 of 2013 and also contrary to the order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P.No. 16739 of 2020 and consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to in respect of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No. 167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re settlement Act, 2013 and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may think deem fit and proper. ” Vide Interim Order dated 17.08.2023, the learned Single Judge (my Predecessor) had directed to maintain Status-Quo in respect of the subject matter for six (06) weeks. Thereafter, the Interim Order came to be extended from time to time. 3. 3 ^ 4. The facts, as projected by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, are that one Sri Billa Narayana Swamy was assigned land in Sy.No. 167/4 of an extent of Ac.5.03 cents. It is submitted that after the death of Sri Billa Narayana Swamy, his widowed wife (Writ Petitioner herein) made an Application to the Respondent No.4 seeking transfer of DKT patta. This was accepted by the Respondent No.4. The 4*'^ Respondent has sub-divided the extent of Ac.5.03 cents in Sy.No.167/4 into new Sy.No.167/5B to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents and Sy.No.167/4B to an extent of Ac.4.89 cents and mutation was also done in the Revenue Records in favour of the Writ Petitioner. Form-1 B was also issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner. On account of the requisition made by the newly impleaded Respondent No.5 (Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation), an extent of Ac. 142.96 cents were sought to be acquired, out of which, the land belonging to several DKT patta holders was also included. The land belonging to Sri Billa Narayana Swamy also got included for acquisition. It is the further case of the Writ Petitioner that when the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of Industrial Park at the behest of the Respondent No.5, the Revenue Authorities, in order to avoid payment of compensation, had issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.04.2021 bearing Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1) stating that the Writ Petitioner had violated the conditions of DKT patta and someone else is in occupation. It is submitted that the impugned Order itself would indicate that the name of the Pattadar is the Writ Petitioner herein and the column relating to the enjoyment and the occupier is kept blank. The impugned Order would also refer to the proposal for acquisition for the purpose of Industrial Park. It is also contended that the Official Respondents herein have passed the Orders of Resumption (impugned Order). 5. 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the additional documents filed by the Writ Petitioner. One such document is the Proceedings of the Respondent No.5 bearing No.ZO/APIIC/ATP/LA/IBEA/Kanumpalli/2019/497 dated 14.09.2022 to the following effect; Lr. “In this connection as per lOM of the APIIC Limited OSD Lands, Mangalagiri, land measuring 142.96 Acres in Kanumpalli Village of Garladinne Mandal of Anantapuramu District here by may be withdrawn. ” 7. Having noted this fact, vide Order dated 18.07.2024, this Court has suo moto impleaded APIIC as Respondent No.5. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APIIC, on instructions, had confirmed to the effect that the APIIC has communicated to the Government that the proposed land has been handed over to the Government as not being required. The Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has filed Counter-Affidavit on 12.10.2023. One of the documents filed by the Tahsildar is the document which shows that the Writ Petitioner has given a Statement on 18.03.2021 thereby consenting to the proposed acquisition for Industrial Park by affixing her Thumb Impression’. 9. This Court would observe that the impugned Order, resuming the land, passed on 24.04.2021, would have been a futile exercise if the Writ Petitioner had willingly consented for resumption and for handing over to the Industrial Park on 18.03.2021. Therefore, the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the Thumb Impression’ was forcibly obtained from the Writ Petitioner for consenting for resumption appears to have some truth in it. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the resumption proceedings are illegal in as much as the Petitioner has never received the notice. It is also contended that the resumption proceedings (impugned proceedings) are also illegal in as much as the Respondents have failed to indicate the alleged violation made by the Writ Petitioner because the impugned proceedings does not indicate as to who is the present occupier of the subject land. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that ever since the land has been mutated in the name of the Writ Petitioner, she 8. 10. 5 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment and has not been alienated to anyone and therefore, Resumption Proceedings are bad in law. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16739 of 2020 dated 24.09.2021 and would submit that the land can be dispossessed by the Official Respondents only by the authority of law and that the Authorities are obligated to follow the procedure prescribed under the statute. 11. Admitted facts of the case are that the husband of the Writ Petitioner is a holder of DKT patta. After his demise, the land has been mutated in the name of the Writ Petitioner, after reallocation of new survey numbers as indicated supra. The Respondent-Officials have obtained the Thumb Impression of the Writ Petitioner on a printed format on 18.03.2021 indicating that the Writ Petitioner has consented for accepting the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) per acre. Thereafter, the impugned Proceedings came to be issued on 24.04.2021 bearing Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1). Admittedly, the impugned Proceeding was issued for resuming the land on the alleged ground that the Writ Petitioner has violated the conditions made for DKT patta holders and that someone else is in occupation of the land. Admittedly, the name of the occupier is not indicated in the impugned Order. Admittedly, the Respondent No.5 has issued the Proceedings to the District Collector, Anantapuramu vide Lr.No.ZO/APIIC/ATP/LA/IBEA/Kanumpalli/2019/497 dated requesting the District Collector to withdraw the acquisition proceedings to an extent of Ac. 142.96 cents. I f 14.09.2022, The above admitted facts would indicate that the consent obtained from the Writ Petitioner on 18.03.2021 is not a valid consent, especially in the light of the fact that subsequently, the Respondent No.4 (The Tahsildar) issued Proceedings on 24.04.2021 seeking to resume the land. It is also noticed that the Official Respondent No.5 does not require the said land anymore and the same has been handed over to the Government. 12. In the given facts, this Court would hold that the impugned proceedirrgs dated 24.04.2021 bearing Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1) are illegal and unsustainable for reasons stated hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned Proceedings are quashed as being illegal and arbitrary. Apart from this, this Court would also hold that there is no valid consent with regard to the statement of the Writ Petitioner dated 18.03.2021 accepting for compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Since the Respondent No.5 has handed over the extent of Ac.142.96 cents to the Government, this Court is of the opinion that the said land (Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.167/5B and Ac.4.89 cents in Sy.No.167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District.) which is released by the Respondent No. 5 shall be handed over to the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner shall enjoy the said land on the same terms and conditions as any other DKT patta holder. 13. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands 14. allowed. No order as to costs. 15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// p-SECTION OFFICER 1 To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. ’ 2. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapur District. 3. The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer District. 4. The Tahsildar, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District. 5. APIIC (Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure i Towers, Plot No 1 , IT Park, Mangalagiri, Guntur, AP 6. One CC to Sri VV N Narayana Rao Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra ^ [OUT]"^^ Acquisition, High Court 9. One CC to Sri J Ugranarasimha (SC for APIIC) Advocate [OPUC] 10. Three CD Copies Ananthapur, Ananthapur Corporation), APIIC -522503. Pradesh. [OUT] of Andhra Pradesh. TF HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.20982 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS