APHC010624562022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 38232/2022 Between: Gujjari Naga Narasinga Rao The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. N RAVI PRASAD 3. K KRISHNABUSHANCHOWDARY The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner authorities are not allotting alternative land in exchange extent of Ac.2.28 cents in survey No.322/3B of Visakhapatnam District which was acquired for the benefit of respondent No.6. 2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kata Sambasivarao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 38232/2022 Gujjari Naga Narasinga Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION KRISHNABUSHANCHOWDARY The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that the respondent are not allotting alternative land in exchange of her land extent of Ac.2.28 cents in survey No.322/3B of Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam District which was acquired for the benefit of respondent No.6. Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kata Sambasivarao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) , in short, is that the respondent of her land to an Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam District which was acquired for the benefit of respondent No.6. Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kata Sambasivarao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land 2 Acquisition and Sri K.Krishna Bhushan Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that on the assurance given by respondent No.2 for allotment of alternative land, the petitioner has handed over his subject land to the authorities for the benefit of respondent No.6. Immediately respondent No.1 vide memo dated 11.02.2005 has allotted the land in survey No.1 to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Paradesipalem village, Visakhapatnam Mandal as compensation. Since the allotted land was far away from the road and is not fit for agricultural operations, the petitioner requested to allot another land or pay compensation to his land. As the alternative land was not handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner made several representations dated 29.03.2012, 13.08.2012 and 21.01.2013 to the authorities to hand over the possession of alternative land which was allotted to the petitioner. The Tahsildar vide his proceedings dated 05.06.2013 stating that the land in survey No.1 situated in Paradesipalem village is Reserve Forest and it is impossible to hand over to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner once again made a representation dated 29.09.2015 to hand over the possession of alternative land. Basing on the direction of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 submitted a report vide proceedings dated 25.08.2021 stating that the land in survey No.314 of Kapuluppada village, Bheemini Mandal is suitable land for the allotment as compensation to the petitioner, but so far no allotment was made to the petitioner. He further 3 submitted that by virtue of the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P (PIL) No.191 of 2021 the said proposal has been stalled. Though the land of the petitioner has been taken long back for the benefit of respondent No.6, the petitioner has not given alternative land. As such, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents of the counter of respondent No.2 submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam has been directed to identify alternative land other than the land in survey No.314 of Kapuluppada village and identification of Government land free from all encumbrances and equivalently valuable to the land exchanged by the petitioner is under progress. However, the petitioner will be provided with Government land free from all encumbrances to the land exchanged by the petitioner. 5. Sri K.Krishna Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that respondent No.5 had no role whatsoever in the alleged acquisition of the subject land of the petitioner. Neither BCCI nor any of its members are government authorities and therefore any such grievance cannot be addressed by the BCCI or its members, as such BCCI is not a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the Writ. As such, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 4 7. Non-allotment of alternative land in lieu of the land taken by the petitioner is the grievance of the petitioner. Perusal of the counter of respondent No.2 would indicate that a direction was given to the Revenue Divisional Officer for identification of alternative land other than the land in survey No.314 of Kapuluppada village and identification of government land free from all encumbrances is under progress. 8. In view of the above and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, as the issue is pending consideration of the authorities, this Court, without going into the merits of the case is inclined to pass the following order: The respondent authorities concerned are directed to complete the process of allotment of alternative land to the petitioner in lieu of the land taken from the petitioner to an extent of Ac.2.28 cents in survey No.322/3B of Madhurawada village, Visakhapatnam District and hand over the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10.02.2025 MP 5 171 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 38232 of 2022 Dt: 10.02.2025 MP