IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25654 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Shaik Khaja Bee, W/o Shaik Shavali, aged 30 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Smt. Shaik Basurun Bee, W/o S. Nayamath Basha, aged 44 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Smt. Chatia Venkatamma, W/o Naganna, aged 71 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 4. Madiga Ramudu, S/o Ayyanna, aged 45 years, Occ- Cultivation, Rio Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnooi District. 5. Smt. Nayakanti Pullamma, W/o Ranganna, aged 67 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. Shaik Chand Basha, S/o Miskin Shaheb, aged 52 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. Smt. Kanigala Seshamma, W/o Vanumulaiah, aged 54 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 8. Smt. Kanigala Pakkiramma, W/o Ayyanna, aged 51 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 9. Mala Narasimhulu, S/o Pullaiah, aged 56 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 10. Smt. Jangam Rajeswaramma, W/o Ganga4iraiah, aged 47 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 11. Kasapogu (Harijana) Pedda Sanjanna, S/o Sanjanna, aged 76 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 12. Smt. Madiga Nagalakshmamma, W/o Venkataswwamy, aged 67 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 13. Smt.Boggula© Madiga Ayyamma, W/o Ayyanna, aged 56 years, Occ- Cultivation, Rio Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 14. Madiga Somanna, S/o late Dasanna, aged 71 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 15. Smt. Harijana Mariyamma, W/o Chinna Sanjanna, aged 66 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 16. Smt.Kasapogu Yellaswamy, S/o Somanna, aged 46 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District 17. Vadde Yellaiah andYellanna, S/o Lakshmanna, aged 40 years, Occ- Cultivation, Rio Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 18. Vadde Keshalu, S/o Lakshmanna, aged 44 years, Occ- Cultivation, Rio Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 19. Vadde Lakshmamma, W/o Maddilety, aged 66 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Palakolanu village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. The Defense Research And Development Organization, Rep. by its Chief Construction Engineer (R&D) 45-B, Akbar Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, direction declaring the action of the T respondents in taking possession of the petitioners lands Ac. 11 .50 in Sy.No.232, Ac.0-80 in Sy.No.232/1, Ac.0-45Cts in Sy.No. 195, Ac.1.08 Cts in Sy.No. 245/2, Ac. 1.25 in Sy.No. 251/1, Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.247/1, Ac.2.00 in Sy.No. 248/1, Ac.2.27 Cts in Sy.No. 36/1, Ac.2.00 in Sy.No. 247/2, Ac.3.00 in Sy.No. 248/2, Ac.0.53 Cts in Sy.No. 191/A of Palakolanu village and Ac.1.25 Cts in Sy.No. 433-M3-A, Ac.1.25 Cts in Sy.No. 433-M3-B, Ac.2.73 Cts in Sy.No. 433-M of Kalva village, Orvakal Mandal Kurnool of D.R.D.O process of law as 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation for our lands forthwith. District, for the purpose of establishment of Open Air Range without paying compensation and without following due illegal, arbitrary and also violative of Article lA NO: 1 OF 202? Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 to pay compensation to petitioners in respect of their lands as per G.O.Ms. No. 259 dated 21-06-2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: — The Court made the following: ORDER p 1 APHC010416032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25654/2022 [3332] Between: Smt. Shaik Khaja Bee and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following Order: The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the respondents have taken possession of the petitioners land for the purpose of establishment of Open Air Range of D.R.D.O without paying compensation to the Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Acquisition. ...RESPONDENT(S) petitioners. 02. petitioners Land The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the authorities under the guise of requisition from the D.R.D.O dated 17.12.2014 for establishment of Open Air Range of Project DRDO, has forcibly taken possession of the petitioners land which was assigned to them without following the procedure contemplated under the law. Infact no resumption proceedings took place and no notice as contemplated by virtue of provisions of Section 9 of 1977 has been issued. Only to deny compensation to the petitioners, the respondent officials with an antidate created the alleged resumption orders. If the same is allowed to continue the petitioners’ rights will be affected. He further contended that by virtue of the Mekalapandu case and G.O.Ms.No.259, the assignees are also entitled for compensation on par with patta holders. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. Infact the petitioners made a representation on 16.05.2022, but so far the authorities have not acted upon. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied on the judgment of a Coordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.12844 of 2018 dated 14.02.2023. 03. On the other hand, Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter contended that, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as the land has been resumed much prior to the requisition made by the D.R.D.O. The petitioners cannot claim any right for compensation and the G.O referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case. He further contended that after eight years of the requisition proceedings of the D.R.D.O they came up with a representation 16.05.2022, as such the writ petition is meritless and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 04. ’v 3 Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the 5. learned counsel. 06. The grievance of the petitioners is that the subject land has been assigned to them and at the requisition made by the DRDO for establishment of Open Air Range Project for D.R.D.O the land has been taken forcibly without acquiring or taking consent from the petitioners alleging that resumption orders were passed on 17.10.2014. It is not in dispute that the land is an assigned land. The respondents did not place on record the material with regard to resumption proceedings as to whether notices in form-l and form-ll as required under law were issued to the petitioners and also whether any panchanamma was recorded before taking possession from the petitioners. The assignees are entitled for compensation on par with the patta land holders by virtue of judgment in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue ‘ Divisionai Officer vs Mekala Pandu and others\ In the said judgment relied by . the learned counsel for the petitioners referred supra, it was categorically held that the assignees are entitled for compensation on par with patta holders, by virtue of Mekala Pandu’s case. Though the respondents are contending that the resumption orders have been passed much prior to the acquisition but as stated supra no material is placed on record in that regard. This court cannot consider the stand taken by the respondent that the land has been resumed from the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the judgment referred supra is fairly applicable to the facts of the case. The learned Assistant Government pleader contended that the petitioners have approached after eight years after acquisition. It is a well established principle that delay cannot be taken as a ground to deny the compensation. 1996(6) ALT322(S.B) 4 1,1^ In view of the same, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following the order: 07. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation 16.05.2022 in terms of the judgment in Mekala Pandu’s case referred supra and pass appropriates orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as 08. to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// if ' SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. JhP District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. The Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. The Chief Construction Engineer (R&B), Defense Research and Development Organization, 45-B, Akbar Road, Secunderabad. One CC to Sri D Krishna Murthy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TF HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.25654 of 2022 O', ^ 0 3 FEB 2n?5 ^ ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS