APHC010593652010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 760 OF 2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 2.9.2010 in W.P.No.19828 of 2008, on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its. Principal Secretary Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner,, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its, Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The Director of Social Welfare,, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri Jagannadha Swamy Sri Anjaneya and Venkateswara, Swamy Temples, Lalapet, Guntur, represented by its Executive Officer. 2. Sri Jagannadha Swamy Temple (ETC), Lalapet, Guntur, Rep. by Trustee Marem Kishore, S/o Yalamanda Rao, aged about 36 years, Occ Trust Board Chairman. its ...Respondents (Respondent No.2 was impleaded as per c.o.dt.20.01.2025 vide ^ I.A.No.1 of 2016 in W.A.No.760 of 2010.) (Executive Officer was brought on record as LR Of Deceased Respondent No.1 as per co.dt.17.08.2012 in WAMP.No.725/11.) lA NO: 1 OF 2010(WAMP 1812 OF 2010) 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 suspend the operation of the Common Order passed in W.P.No. 19828 of 2008, dated 2.9.2010 and pass such other order or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following order: APHC010593652010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ill [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 760/2010 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Common Order passed in W.P.No. 19828 of 2008, dated 2.9.2010. Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. (ENDOWMENTS-IV) 2.THE COMMISSIONER,, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 4.THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.SRI JAGANNADHA SWAMY SRI ANJANEYA AND VENKATESWARA, SWAMY TEMPLES, LALAPET, GUNTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.EXECUTIVE OFFICER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR OF DECEASED RESPONDENT N0.1 AS PER CO.DT.17.08.2012 IN WAMP.NO.725/11. 2. SRI JAGANNADHA SWAMY TEMPLEETC REP.BY ITS TRUSTEE MAREM KISHORE, RAO,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENT N0.2 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.20.01.2025 VIDE I.A.N0.1 OF 2016 IN W.A.NO.760 OF 2010. LALAPET,GUNTUR, S/0 YALAMANDA OCC TRUST BOARD CHAIRMAN. ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2010fWAMP 1812 OF 2010 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 suspend the operation of the Common Order passed in W.P.No. 19828 of 2008, dated 2.9.2010 and pass such other order or further orders. Ka<^‘R£J .WA.^o.760of2010 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2011(WAMP 725 OF 2011 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 bring the Executive officer of Sri Jagannadha Swamy, Sri Anjaneya and Venkateswara Swamy Temples, Lalapet, Guntur in place of the deceased representative i.e., Sri Ande Siva Narayana being the Legal Representative of the Respondent in the above Writ Appeal and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2016(WAMP 2068 OF 2016 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 permit the petitioner to come on record as Respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No.760/2010 Counsel for the Appeliant(S): 1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M RATNA REDDY 2.KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 08.07.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 02.09.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19828 of 2008, the respondents therein, preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. Through the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the respondent-temple questioning the action of Revenue & Social Welfare Department in neither paying compensation nor initiating land acquisition ^C3^<RC3 .WJi.!Nb.760of2010 3 proceedings in respect of temple lands, was disposed of by the learned single Judge, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to competent civil Court, with a further direction that the trial court shall determine the market value based on the evidence placed before it and that the temple shall be entitled to be extended the other benefits. 3. For expediency, the writ petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as temple. 4. There is no dispute regarding the factual matrix of the case. The land endowed to the temple was grabbed and the government had chosen to grant pattas and provided amenities to the occupants/grabbers of the land. Thereafter, the Government initiated land acquisition proceedings through social welfare department and Draft Notification and Draft Declarations were published in the year 1982 and possession of the lands was taken on 29.09.1982 and the Commissioner of Endowments had given consent for acquisition of land on payment of compensation of Rs.l lakh per acre. Consequent to failure of the government to pay compensation despite long lapse of time, the temple filed Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.3095 & 3096 of 1987, which were dismissed. Writ Appeals preferred by the temple vide W.A.Nos.1201 & 1202 of 1989 were disposed of on 07.09.1989, directing the government to initiate fresh proceedings for the acquisition of the lands in question. Thereafter, the Government had agreed to pay to the temple M.JAMo.760 of2010 4 compensation with interest at 9% per annum from 19.09.1982. Since the said amount was not paid despite lapse of more than three decades, the temple filed the subject writ petition to direct the respondents either to pay compensation as per the present market value or direct them to restore possession of the land to the temple. In the said writ petition, an interim direction dated 12.09.2008 was given in W.P.M.P.No.25902 of 2008 directing the respondents to initiate action within one month for acquisition of land in the alternative to pay damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. Alleging noncompliance of the order dated 12.09.2008, Contempt Case No. 1628 of 2009 was filed by the temple. The government filed counter therein that pursuant to the said orders notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 was published on 24.10.2008 and award was passed on 24.06.2010. or 5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the temple as well as learned Additional Advocate General, the learned single Judge had also taken the main writ petition along with the Contempt Case and disposed of them vide the impugned orders. 6. The learned single Judge, having observed that there were several abnormalities in the award dated 24.06.2010, including that consent said to have been given by the temple was of the year 1982, held that the award dated 24.06.2010 shall be treated as the one passed without consent. '.WA-J^o.760 of2010 5 Further, the learned single Judge opted the second of the two alternatives and accordingly directed the respondents to refer the matter under section 18 of the Act. 7. Heard Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri KKoteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments. 8. It is the strenuous contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that since the amount covered under the award dated 24.06.2010 has duly been received by the temple authorities without any protest, the temple is not entitled for any reference, however, the learned single Judge failed to take into consideration the said aspect. 9. The appellant filed Consolidated vouchers for payment of land compensation of Rs.22,57,000/- and for payment of interest at 9% p.a. for the period from 19.09.1982 to 30.06.2010 of Rs.56,36,858/- in evidence of payment of the amount together with interest covered under the award No.l of 2010, dated 24.06.2010. As per the vouchers, the payment was made even before disposal of the writ petition. 10. It is relevant here to extract the observations of the learned single Judge that are relevant for the present purpose. The said observations start from unnumbered paragraph-3 of page-3 of the order. M.^A^o.760 of2010 6 'In response to the interim directions issued by this Court, the respondents have published notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 24.10.2008 and passed an award on 24.06.2010. A perusal of the award discloses that it has several abnormalities. Reference was made to a consent said to have been given in the year 1982. It is not out ofplace to mention that the Government framed the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992. A detailed procedure is prescribed for constitution of a Negotiation Committee and the recording of the consent No such steps were taken. In the judgment referred to supra (Guddi Malkapur Cooperative Housing Society vs. L.A.O., HUDA, Hyderabad(2007(1) ALT547D.B.)), the Division Bench of this Court held that it is only when the negotiations take place, subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, that a consent award can be passed. In the instant case, no negotiations were held after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 24.10.2008. Hence the very basis for the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed on the assumption that there existed a consent is invalid. He refused to award the statutory benefits, such as solatium, additional market value etc. 11. The learned single Judge found fault with the manner of passing award holding that even though there was no valid consent, the award had been passed as if there existed consent and further the learned single Judge observed that the award suffers from so many abnormalities. 12. In the later part of the order, the learned single Judge found that two alternatives were available, one is to remand the matter to Land Acquisition Officer for fresh consideration and disposal and the other is to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. However, considering the factum of lapse of several decades since the possession of the land was taken, held that the second option would be the better and accordingly disposed of the writ petition. W.X^oJGOof 2010 1 13. In view of the above, the learned single Judge thought it better to direct the authorities to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act than to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for fresh consideration and disposal. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate General that since the award amount was received without protest referring the matter under section 18 of the Act would be unsustainable, does not merit consideration, since instead of remanding the matter the option under Section 18 of the Act preferred considering long lapse of time. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in opinion does not deserve inference of this Court. This Writ Appeal being was our 14. meritless deserves dismissal. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V.DIWAKAR deputy REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. M Ratna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Koteswara Rao Kappera SC For Endowments Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies CCs to The AddI Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh GSC HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 I ORDER WA NO. 760 OF 2010 ^ H AUG 2025 )g & SectjojvX^ DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS