APHC010569202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT APPEAL NO: 1052/2024 Between: Guntaka Satyanarayana Reddy Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P SOMA SEKHARA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) 4. SODUM ANVESHA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 07.01.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10750 of 2024, the intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. The petitioner filed writ petition questioning the inaction of respondent no.3-The Regional Officer/Project Director, National Highway IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT APPEAL NO: 1052/2024 Guntaka Satyanarayana Reddy ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Appellant: P SOMA SEKHARA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 07.01.2025 (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10750 of 2024, the writ petitioner preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. The petitioner filed writ petition questioning the inaction of The Regional Officer/Project Director, National Highway IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR Challenging the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed by a learned single petitioner preferred this 2. The petitioner filed writ petition questioning the inaction of The Regional Officer/Project Director, National Highway HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 2 Authority of India, in not paying the revised compensation fixed by respondent no.4-The District Collector. 3. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are as follows: The land owned by the petitioner, which was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture, was acquired by National Highways Authority for shifting/erection of electrical High Tension lines pursuant to laying of National Highway bypass road. Thereafter, respondent no.4-District Collector, without issuing any notice and providing opportunity of being heard, without considering the nature of the land being non-agriculture, its location adjacent to corporation core area and disregard to the provisions of Electricity Act,2003 (for short, ‘the Act, 2003’) and the Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short, ‘ the Act 30 of 2013’), passed award determining compensation at Rs.26,56,376/-, i.e. for Ac.0.225 cents occupied by Tower Base Area at Rs.26,43,750/- and the Right of way Compensation at Rs.12,626/- towards damage of crops as electrical HT lines are passing through the petitioner’s land. Dissatisfied, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent nos. 3 and 4 for consideration of the claim by placing evidence. Thereupon, the respondent no.4, after causing an enquiry and upon considering the reports submitted by Tahsildar as well as Sub HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 3 Collector, revised the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.1,90,57,500/- as compensation for the land covered under the Tower Base area vide proceedings dated 19.02.2024. Since the revised compensation is not paid, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the amount due. 4. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the writ affidavit being devoid of merits and further contending that the subject matter is in relation to shifting of certain Electrical HT lines to the subject lands of the petitioner and an extent of Ac.0.2250 cents was to be utilized for installation of electrical towers. For such purpose, no land acquisition proceedings need be undertaken and ownership of the land still remains in the name of the petitioner, hence, the provisions of Act,2013 are not applicable. Since the subject land is used for erection of electrical HT lines, NHAI pays compensation as per the guidelines stated in G.O.Rt.No.83, dated 20.06.2017. The compensation determined by the District collector in relation to the petitioner which is to the tune of Rs.26,56,376/- was deposited by NHAI with the Sub Collector, Vijayawada for further disbursement to the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Collector vide proceedings dated 19.02.2024 had re-determined the compensation. As per Section 67(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner, if aggrieved by HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 4 fixation of compensation, has to approach the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. Instead, the petitioner sought re-determination of compensation from the Collector and the Collector, without having any jurisdiction or power, revisited and reviewed his own orders. Therefore, the revised orders issued by the District Collector are illegal, nothing short of misuse of powers and beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Electricity Act,2003. Further, conversion of land to Non-agriculture being subsequent to starting of the subject project, the land cannot be considered as non-agriculture and therefore the compensation determined by the District Collector vide orders dated 23.11.2022 is proper. Therefore, since the revised order dated 19.02.2024 is invalid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned single Judge upon considering the pleadings and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition-in part setting aside the revised order issued by respondent no.4 so far it relates to application of provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 i.e. multiplication of 2.5 times of compensation, with a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the revised compensation on the ground of non-agricultural land at Rs.76,23,000/- as determined by respondent no.4, with a further direction to both the parties to HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 5 avail alternative statutory remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. 6. Heard Sri P.Soma Sekhara Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India. 7. Sri P.Soma Sekhara Naidu, learned counsel, while reiterating the grounds of appeal as well as contents of the writ affidavit would contend that Courts are not allowed to traverse beyond the pleadings and relief, however, the learned single Judge, in a writ petition filed seeking a direction to the authorities to pay revised compensation, travelled much beyond the scope of the writ petition and gone into validity of the proceedings and modified it, which has not been challenged and became final. Moreover, the learned single Judge erred in holding that compensation shall only be fixed in terms of G.O.Rt.No.83,dated 20.06.2017 of the Department of Energy, Infrastructure & Investment Department, but not under the provisions of the Act, 2013, in utter ignorance of the fact that the said G.O.Rt. is applicable only in respect of licensees. The learned counsel would further contend that even otherwise, since the proceedings had attained finality, the said issue cannot be reopened and that too in the writ filed for its implementation. Hence, the orders passed by the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 6 allow the writ appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge and consequently allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, contended that respondent no.4, after passing the award dated 23.11.2022, became functus officio of the matter and hence he cannot reopen the matter and pass fresh award and thus the proceedings ordering payment of revised compensation amount is non-est in the eye of law. The learned Standing Counsel would further contend that application of provisions of Act 30 of 2013 for ordering revised compensation is erroneous and the provisions of the Act, 2003 and the G.O.Rt.No.83, dated 20.06.2017 are only relevant for the said purpose, as ownership of the land would be with the landlord and he can use the land. Further, the provisions of the Act, 2003 carved out a mechanism for redressal of grievance of inadequate compensation in the form of an appeal to the Electricity Regulatory Commission. Instead of availing the said statutory remedy, the appellant made representation to respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 though became functus officio entertained it and under misconception of law and facts and moreover though not entitled to review the orders already passed, had issued the proceedings ordering payment of revised HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 7 compensation. The learned single Judge upon appreciation of the facts and material in proper perspective had rightly came to the conclusion that provisions of the Act, 2013 are not applicable to the facts of the case. The writ appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed so also the writ petition. 9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. The writ petition was filed for implementation of the proceedings of respondent no.4 whereby revised compensation is ordered. In response, the NHAI authorities had attacked the validity of the orders passed by respondent no.4. The learned single Judge had gone into the validity of the orders and set aside the orders sought to be implemented and modified it directing respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay Rs.76,23,000/- determined by respondent no.4 towards compensation treating the land as non-agricultural land. 11. It is relevant here to note that NHAI authorities did not challenge the proceedings of respondent no.4 whereby revised compensation is ordered before any authority taking recourse to any of the provisions. 12. It is fairly settled that in writ proceedings, the Court’s role is to either grant the relief sought or dismiss the petition, and it cannot extend its HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 8 jurisdiction to grant relief beyond what is requested or to impose additional conditions. 13. In view of the above settled principle of law, the learned single Judge could have either directed the respondent authorities to implement the orders or to dismiss the writ petition declining to order its implementation. Instead of confining to the relief sought in the writ petition, the learned single Judge went beyond it and gone into the validity of the award sought to be implemented and modified it. The observations made by the learned single Judge for setting aside the orders of respondent no.4 are that respondent no.4 had erroneously applied the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 for determining compensation and he having determined compensation in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.83, cannot approbate and reprobate and blow hot and cold at the same time. The above observations would indicate that the learned single Judge dealt with the issue in the writ petition as if an appeal was preferred against the orders, which cannot be done while dealing with the writ petition filed for mere implementation of the said orders, especially when the implementing authority did not choose to prefer any appeal. 14.The contentions raised by the respondents in the course of arguments in this appeal cannot be taken up for consideration for the reason that they did not prefer any appeal against the orders of the learned single HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.1052 of 2024 9 Judge whereby they were directed to pay Rs.76,23,000/- towards compensation. 15. In the above view of the matter, the orders passed by learned single Judge setting aside and modifying the orders passed by respondent no.4, since unrelated to the relief sought in the writ petition, is liable to be set aside. 16. So far as the relief sought in the writ petition is concerned, since an there is an efficacious remedy for getting the orders passed by respondent no.4 implemented, the petitioner can redress his grievance by resorting to the modalities contained therein. Likewise, the NHAI authorities can have their grievance redressed by approaching the appropriate authorities. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the orders dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned single Judge as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR