APHC010422962014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15428/2014 Between: Kokku Vasantha, Nellore Dist. ...PETITIONER AND Chief Secy Dept Of Energy Hyd 2 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, was the owner of Ac.0.92 cents of land, in Sy.No.550/1-2 of Kristapatnam Village, Muthukur Mandal, Nellore District. This land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing an Ultra Mega Power Station at Kristapatnam Village. For this purpose, land acquisition proceedings, were initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Draft Declaration, dated 08.01.2007 was published, under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This declaration was 2 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 challenged by the petitioner, in W.P.No.4550 of 2007, before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the 1st respondent, had issued a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 05.03.2008. In this notification, the name of the pattadar for Sy.No.557 was shown as Sri P.Nageswara Rao. Subsequently, this notification was withdrawn, on 01.10.2007, under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. It appears that the petitioner had also moved W.P. No.15290of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the notification issued in favour of Sri P.Nageswara Rao. This Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and to follow due process of law. 4. The 1st respondent, again issued a fresh notification, dated 15.10.2008, for acquisition of the land. In this notification, the name of the owner was shown as Smt. E. Nageswaramma and the petitioner was shown as the enjoyer of the said property. This notification was again challenged, by way of W.P.No.26682 of 2008. However, this came to be dismissed, with an observation that the objections of the petitioner would be considered by the Land Acquisition Authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved Writ Appeal No.770 of 2009, which was also dismissed. 3 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by way of S.L.P. No.32801 of 2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a judgment, dated 14.12.2009, had allowed the Acquisition Proceedings to continue. 6. The petitioner, after the dismissal of S.L.P.No.32801 of 2009, had again approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.34041 of 2011, for fixation of compensation that needs to be paid for the land, which had been taken over from the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for allotment of an alternative land, if the original land cannot be returned. Thereafter, an exercise was carried out for providing an alternative land to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to receive the land shown to her, on the ground that, the said land is not cultivable. Subsequently, the Writ Petition came to be disposed of, on 28.02.2012, leaving it open to the petitioner to receive the compensation awarded to her under the award, dated 21.11.2009 and to submit an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within four (04) weeks from the date of the judgment. There was a further direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court, if such an application is made within four (04) weeks from the date of the order. 7. The petitioner, in pursuance of this direction, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, who referred the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, 4 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 by a communication, which was received by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, on 28.04.2012. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, on the basis of this communication, took up the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation, by numbering the same as L.A.O.P. No.45 of 2012. The said L.A.O.P., is said to be pending, before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. As the petitioner was not receiving the compensation fixed under the award, dated 21.11.2009, the Land Acquisition Officer appears to have deposited a sum of Rs.5,42,160/- with the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 8. The petitioner also states that, two awards have been passed, in relation to this land, but no notice has been served on her. Apart from this, the petitioner contends that the land of the petitioner and the other acquired lands could not be used as the Mega Power Project in view of the soil condition and the water levels in the area, could not be established. 9. The petitioner is represented by her brother, Sri K. Rajendra. Both the petitioner and Sri K. Rajendra are personally present before this Court and Sri K. Rajendra conducted the case on behalf of the petitioner. Upon an offer made by this Court for grant of legal assistance through the Legal Services Committee, the same was rejected by Sri K. Rajendra and the same has reiterated by the petitioner. 10. Sri K. Rajendra, representing his sister, contends that, no compensation was received by the petitioner till date, for the loss of her land. 5 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 He would also contend that the land, which has been acquired from the petitioner has not been put to use for any purpose. He would also contend that there was no possibility of establishment of a Mega Power Project in the area on account of the soil conditions and the water levels. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the land is restored to the petitioner. 11. Sri K. Rajendra, relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.8438 of 2016, contending that the land of the petitioner should be returned to her. Apart from this, compensation should alsobe awarded and paid to the petitioner on account of the occupation and use of the land for the past 20 years. 12. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the land of the petitioner has now become a part of a larger extent of land enclosed by a compound wall and the same cannot be returned to the petitioner. He further submits that the said land is in the process of being utilized for the construction of other industries and as such, it cannot be said that there is no utilization of the land. 13. Sri K. Rajendra, would also contend that the land of the petitioner, is adjacent to the compound wall and can be released without any difficulty. He further contends that the land cannot be used for other projects and a fresh notification has to be issued, under the Land Acquisition Act, for a fresh acquisition of the land. 6 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 14. The compensation payable under the award has already been deposited before the civil court and the same can be received by the petitioner. Any further claim for enhancement and damages for use of the land, without payment of compensation can be agitated before the reference court, where the reference is pending. 15. The petitioner claims that she would be entitled to a return of her land as it is not being used at all and in any event, not for the purpose for which it had been acquired. This contention would have considerable force, where such land is acquired under Act 30 of 2013. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, her land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is no such provision for returning the land of the petitioner, on the ground of non use of the land, for the purposes set out in the acquisition notification. Such claims have been rejected, in earlier cases. (please see: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Maharashtra1, State of Kerala vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai2, Leela Wanti and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,3 and a case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrasekaran and Ors. vs. The Administrative Officer and Ors.,4, had reviewed the earlier judgements and upheld the principle in Paras 17, 21 and 22. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. V.P. Sharma,5, Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. 1 1977 AIR 448 2 (1997) 5 SCC 432 3 AIR 2012 SC 515, (2012) 1 SCC 66 4 (2012) 12 SCC 133, [2012] 10 SCR 603 5 AIR 1966 SC 1593 7 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 vs. Shri Avinash Sharma,6; Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P. and Ors.7; Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. vs. Shri Kishan and Ors.8 and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India vs. Subodh Singh and Ors. 9 . (See also: Pratap vs. State of Rajasthan 10 Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra11; State of Kerala and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr.,12; Printers (Mysore). Ltd. vs. M.A. Rasheed and Ors.13; Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Hanumaiah14; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.15. 16. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedies under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:25.04.2025 KPV 6 AIR 1970 SC 1576 7 AIR 1993 SC 2517 8 (1993) 2 SCC 84 9 (2011) 11 SCC 100 10 AIR 1996 SC 1296; 11 (1996) 6 SCC 405 12 AIR 1997 SC 2703 13 (2004) 4 SCC 460 14 (2005) 12 SCC 508 15 (2011) 9 SCC 354) 8 RRR,J W.P.No.15428 of 2014 39 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No:15428 of 2014 25.04.2025 KPV