IF APHC010727602017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ s I® .-’O' .'Cj: Ji 4 FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3225 OF 2017 Between: 1. G.P. Ranga Swamy, S/o Gundamaiah, Aged about 65 Hussainapuram village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Y. Nagabhushana Reddy,, S/o Y.Rameshwara Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o Madhava Nagar, Kurnool. 3. B. Sami Reddy,, S/o B.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 50 Housing Board Colony, Kurnool. 4. C.Krishna Reddy,, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 60 years, H. Kottala Hussainapuram village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Y.Buda Bhaskar Reddy,, S/o Y.C. Puna Reddy, Aged about 58 R/o Near Laxmi School, Kothapet, Kurnool. 6. Dereddi Shankar Reddy,, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged about 58 Narsimharaopet, Kurnool. 7. C. Ramakrishna Reddy,, S/o Siva Reddy, Aged about H.Kottala Hussainapuram village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. years, R/o years, R/o years. years 55 years. ...Petitioners AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Land Surface Transport Department, New Delhi. 2. The Competent Authority (Land Acquisition/NHA18, Collector), Kurnool. cum Joint r 3. National Highway Authority, Rep. by its Project Director, PIU Ananthapur. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or orders or Direction, declaring the award passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Award No.5/2011 in Proceedings RC. No.G1.1613/2009, dated 04.11.2011 in so far as the lands of the Petitioners are concerned in Sy. No. 265 of Hussainapuram village of Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, as wholly illegal and arbitrary, consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to pass supplementary award in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 265 of Hussainapuram village of Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 3815 OF 2017 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 grant Interim directions to the Respondents to consider the representations made by the Petitioners dated 10.10.2013, 04.11.2013, 04.03.2014 and 23.02.2016 in respect of land in Sy. No.265 of Hussainapuram village of Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 receive the Statements of Award Enquiry of national Highway No. 18 of Land Acquisition Dt.26-04-2011, Sale Deed of the Petitioner and the Sale Agreements of the other petitioners as additional material papers in W.P.No.3225/2017. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI R PRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRI S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) The Court made the following order: 1 RRR, J W.P,No.3225 of 2017 APHC010727602017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No:3225 of 2017 Between; G.p. Ranga Swamy, Kurnool Dist & 6 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Secretary Land Surface Transport Dept New Delhi 2 Other and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.R PRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 3.S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) ...RESPONDENT(S) 4.. The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Chetiuri Srinivas (R. Prasad Reddy), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2 RRR, J ^ W.P.No.3225 of 2017 nd 2. The 2 respondent, on behalf of the respondent, had undertaken the process of acquisition of land in Sy.No.265 in Hussainapuram Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, for the purpose of expansion of National Highway. This exercise was initiated by way of publication of notification, under Section 3A of the National Highways Act 09.10.2009. Subsequent notifications under the provisions of the National 1956, on Highways Act were also published and an Award was passed on 31.07.2010. After this Award, there were additional claims supplementary Award, dated 04.11.2011, also came to be passed. were made and a 3. The petitioners herein have challenged the supplementary Award, dated 04.11.2011, issued by the 2""^ respondent, on the ground that they had interest in the land and they were not given an opportunity to raise necessary objections as to the valuation of the land. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in Sy.No.265, which was originally agricultural land, had been converted into plots after obtaining permissions from the Gram Panchayat and that the petitioners herein had purchased the said plots from their vendors. The petitioners contended that they were not given an opportunity to place these facts before the 2"^ respondent and that supplementary proceedings had been passed by the 2^^^ respondent without hearing them. The competent authority has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the competent authority has taken the stand that petltioi^ers 2 to 7 do not have any deed of sale or valid document of transfer Award 4. the 3 RRR, J W.P,No.3225 of 2017 and are making a claim of ownership on the basis of agreements of sale. The competent authority contends that the agreements of sale would not confer any title, and as such, petitioners 2 to 7 do not have any interest in the land which entitle them to a hearing before the authorities. As far as the petitioner is concerned, the competent authority admits that there is a deed of sale in favour of the petitioner. However, the competent authority contends that the land acquisition process, under the Act, had been initiated for widening of existing N.H.18 and a detailed project report was prepared during the year 2007-2008, and that the deed of sale in favour of the petitioner was registered on 21.05.2009, for the purpose of obtaining undue benefit in the guise of compensation. 5. 6. The petitioners have not placed any document before this Court to demonstrate that they had filed any objections, of any nature, before the competent authority prior to the passing of supplementary Award. The contention of the petitioners is that they were not put on notice to file their objections. This contention cannot be accepted, as notifications under the Act had been published in the local newspapers and the petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the same. As far as the question of considering the claims of petitioner 2 to 7 are concerned, the case of the petitioners themselves is that they have 7. agreements of sale. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SuraJ Lamp RRR, J W.P.No.3225 of 2017 and Industries Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,\ had held that a general power of attorney or an agreement of sale would not confer any title interest on such agreement holders or general power of attorney holders and that transfer of title or creation of interest was only by way of a registered deed of sale. In the circumstances, petitioners 2 to 7 cannot be treated or as persons interested”. They do not have locus to raise issues for payment of compensation or the quantum of compensation. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not filed objections till the supplementary award was passed. The objections, which have been placed before this Court, are the objections that have been raised two years after the supplementary award had been passed. 8. any 9. In any event, the supplementary award records that the person, who is said to have sold these plots to the petitioners, had raised the ground that the compensation should be calculated on yard wise basis and the land had been converted to plots. This contention, of the vendor of the petitioners, was rejected after due inquiry. 10. Further, it was always open to the petitioners to approach the arbitrator under the provisions of the National Highways Act, within the time prescribed for such a course of action. Instead, the petitioners have approached this Court six years after the passing of the supplementary award. ' AIR 2012 SC 206 = (2012) 1 SCC 656 A. ipnpr 5 RRR, J , W.P.No.3225 of 2017 In the circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. R Prasad Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Bethapalli Suryanarayana (Central Govt Counsel) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. S S Varma (SC for NHAI) [OPUC] GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. Two CCs to [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 3225 OF 2017 12 AUG 2025 ^ DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS