APHC010653912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 39023 OF 2022 Between: Aria Ramesh Babu, S/o.China Subbaiah, Aged 42 years, Hindu, Occ Cultivation, R/o.Thurupu Kammapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban-Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amarvati, Guntur District. 2. District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole Revenue Division, Ongole City Prakasam District. 4. Ongole Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ongole City, Prakasam District. 5. Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 74 gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Prakasam District in spite of repeated representations were made including dated 16-10-2017, irregular, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and powers vested with the office and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1956 and Violative of provisions of New Land Acquisition Policy, 2013 there under Articles 14 and 300A of the ‘5s Constitution of India and consequently the respondents to pay the compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 14 gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Prakasam District in accordance with New Land Acquisition Policy, 2013. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16-10-2017 to pay the compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 % gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Prakasam District in accordance with New L^d Acquisition Policy, 2013, pending disposal of the main writ petition. 4"'^^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1:GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINI AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,3 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS as illegal, misuse of The Court made the following order: APHC010653912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 39023/2022 Between: 1.ARLA RAMESH BABU, S/0.CHINA SUBBAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.THURUPU KAMMAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATION.AND URBAN-DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ITS PRINCIPAL MUNICIPAL SECRETARY TO 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3.REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE REVENUE DIVISION, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.0NG0LE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5.TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 1/4 gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits. Prakasam District in spite of repeated representations were made including dated 16-10-2017, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and misuse of powers vested with the office and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1956 and Violative of Land Acquisition Policy, 2013 there under Articles Constitution of India and provisions of New 14 and 300A of the consequently the respondents to pay the compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 1/4 gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, i accordance with New Land Acquisition Policy, 2013 and Prakasam District in pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16-10-2017 to pay the compensation for the land an extent of 90 sq. yards or 11 VI gadies in Survey No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Prakasam District in accordance with New Land Acquisition Policy pending disposal of the main writ petition and , 2013, pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 39023/2022 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation for tho land to an extent of 90 Sq. yards in Sy.No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation limits, Prakasam District, in spite of the repeated representations of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.21 cents in Patta No. 126 in Sy.No.73 of Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits, Prakasam District. It is stated that the said property fell to the share of his father under a partition deed dated 25.08.1971 and ever since, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. While so, the 4'*^ respondent tried to form a road and construct a drainage canal in the year 2001 without any acquisition or consent the petitioner filed O.S.No.666 of 2001 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, seeking permanent injunction stating that the respondents are interfering with the property. 3. Though, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004. The appellate Court i.e.. Ill Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole in A.S.No.37 of 2004 had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2005 and allowed the appeal restraining the respondents not to interfere with plot No.A as shown in the plaint schedule property for the purpose of laying a road or formation of drainage canal. Despite the same, petitioner submits that in the year 2002, an extent of 90 Sq. yards of the site of the petitioner was dsed by the respondent-municipality for the purpose of laying road and drainage canal. 4. The petitioner states that he had represented to the Respondent authorities to pay the compensation for the land acquired. Taking note of the representations, the 4^^ respondent vide resolution CR.No.542 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009, resolved to pay compensation to the private land land was lost in extension of road. Subsequently, the 5 owners whose respondent issued proceedings dated 23.03.2011, calling upon the Sub-Registrar, Ongole to submit the market value particulars of Sy.No.73 i.e., the survey number property of the petitioner was located. 5, Again on 09.03.2015, the 4"' respondent issued proceedings to the Joint Collector, Prakasam District, with a request to accord permission to acquire land of the petitioner and fix market value and the similar letter was issued to 2^"^ respondent on 03.11.2016. The 2 nd respondent on 20.04.2017 called upon the 4^'' respondent to furnish information regarding the land acquired. Since then, no further action has been taken by the respondent authorities and hence, the present writ petition is filed. The 4‘^ respondent filed counter-affidavit, wherein it 6. was stated that the property of the petitioner to an extent of 90 Sq. yards was used for municipal purposes and there was no denial of the Municipal Corporation resolutions as well as consequential letters issued by the respondent authorities which 5 were referred in the writ affidavit. It is also admitted that no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Further in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the respondent municipality was upgraded into the municipal corporation and in view of Sections 145, 146 & 147 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the 4‘^ respondent will fix the market value as provided under Section 7. 147(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 after getting approval from the standing committee to pay such compensation to the petitioner. In the light of the counter-affidavit of the 4*'" respondent, there is no 8. dispute with regard to the liability to pay compensation, but only issued the quantum of compensation of the time issue. The counter-affidavit filed by the 4*^ respondent does not specify any time limit within which time compensation would be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court considering that acquisition is of the year 2002. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 9. i) The Respondent authorities are directed to fix compensation as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of six (06) months from today. ii) Any delay in payment of the compensation would be considered as gross contempt of the order of this Court. 6 iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^ //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban-Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Velagapudi, Amarvati, Guntur District. 2. District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole Revenue Prakasam District. 4. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation Prakasam District. 5. Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations[OPUC ] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 9. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies Ssb(gsg) Secretariat, Division, Ongole City, Ongole City, Pradesh [OUT] and Urban Development, 1 T HIGH COURT N DATED:01/07/2025 * 2 0 AUG 2025 s ^ , Currenl Section ORDER WP No.39023 OF 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS