IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1531 OF 9017 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in WP No.7169 of 2010 on the file of the High Court. Between: RAO 1. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala Vijayawada-4 Krishna District. 2. The Executive Engineer, TLC Division Gunadala Vijayawada-4 Krishna District A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, ■..APPELLANT{S) AND 1. K. Venkata Narayana, S/o. Sri Venkateswarlu. Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. ' 2. Kongara Krishna Muhhy, S/o. Sri Narsimhayya, R/o. Chandapuram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District, (died) 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Chief Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad, Presently at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. R/o. Chandapuram 4. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam District. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisionai Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6. Kongara Mohana Murthy, S/o Krishna Murthy,aged of Chandrapuram Village, Nandigama Mandal (Respondent No.6 was brought on record per c.o.dtOI.10.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.A.No.1531 of 2017.) , Krishna r Officer, 54 years. Resident Krishna District. as LR of Respondent No.2 as ...Respondents LA. NO: 1 OF 2017rWAMP Mn- 2830 OF 2017) statedTir" IT ''' “-^-nrstances Stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the order made in W.P.No.7169 of 2010, dated 23- present Writ Appeal. may be 11- 2016, pending disposal of the Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The Court made the following order: VVSATISH 1 and 2: P PRABHAKAR RAO 3 to 5: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 1 ■/'' ■ / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO / AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1531 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the order, dated 23.11.2016, passed in W.P.No.7169 of 2010, by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent No.1 was the owner of the land of an extent of Ac.03.03 cents in Sy.Nos. 118/IB and 118/2 of Chandapuram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District. The respondent No.2 had purchased Ac.0.50 cents of this land. In the month of October 2004, proceedings were initiated to take over the said land for the purpose of construction of 132/33 K.V. Sub-Station at Nandigama, by the A.P. TRANSCO. Initially, negotiations were carried out for the purpose of fixing the compensation for payment. At the initial stage, an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs per acre was fixed as market value, during the course of negotiations and consent letters were also taken on stamp papers from the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Subsequently, the authorities speeded up the process of acquisition by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 27.06.2005 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 12.07.2005. Apart from this, the authorities Mnvoked Section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for taking over the immediate possession of the land. At that stage, the authorities took the market 2 value of the land at Rs.3.5 lakhs and paid 80% of the compensation, calculated on the basis of market value of the land at Rs.3.5 Lakhs. 3. The authorities, after taking over the land, did not take any steps to pass necessary Award and the said Award came to be passed only on 13.08.2009. It appears that the said Award fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2.00 lakhs and steps were initiated for recovery of money, which was already paid to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, on the ground that there was excess payment. 4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 approached this erstwhile High Court by way of W.P.No.7169 of 2010 contending that Award had been passed beyond the time framed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the Award would subsequently lapse. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 23.11.2016 held that the delay of four (04) years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) and the date of award was sufficient to hold that there was violation of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and subsequently, set-aside the proceedings pursuant to the notification under Section 4 (1), dated 27.06.2005, with a direction to issue afresh notification under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 5. Aggrieved by the said order. M/s. A.P.TRANSCO has filed the present Writ Appeal. 3 r 6. Heard Sri.V.V.Sathish, learned counsel for the appellants/res pondent Nos.4 & 5 and Sri.P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It appears that the respondent No.2 had passed away during the pendency of the Writ Appeal and the respondent No.6 has brought on record as his Legal Representative. Sri. V.V.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the rigour of Section 11-A of the Act would not be applicable in a situation where provisions of Section 17(a) had been invoked, and possession of land was 8. taken over after payment of 80 % of the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd., and Another Vs. State of U.P., and Another^ 10. Sri.P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 disputes the said contention. He would contend that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the aforesaid case, does not laid down the law that Section 11-A would not be applicable in cases, where 80% of the compensation has been paid after taking possession of the land under Section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel would also contend that the compensation should have been calculated on the market value of Rs.4.00 lakhs, whereas, compensation was calculated at Rs.3.50 lakhs per acre. ^ 2022 see Online Se 1408 4 Subsequently, the payment made by the authorities, while taking the possession, does not amount to 80% of the compensation payable. He would submit that the respondent authorities had reduced the market value of the land to Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre in the Award. \ i 11. Sri.V.V.Sathish, learned counsel for the appellants, would point out to a computer printout showing that O.P.No.15 of 2010 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama was closed on 19.06.2014 and also the print out showing that the petitioner in the said case was respondent No.1 and had engaged an Advocate. Learned counsel would contend that the respondents having exercised their remedy of approaching the Court for enhancement of compensation, could not have maintained the Writ Petition. 12. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., case was summarised in paragraph No.27 of the said judgment. The extract of paragraph No.27 reads as under: 27. In the result, we pass the following order: The provision contained in Section 11A of the Act, 1894 shall be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not complied with the requirement of sub-section (3A) to Section 17 of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty percentum of the estimated compensation before taking possession since possession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken in accordance with law and the vesting is not absolute. If the requirement is complied and possession is taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A of Act, 1894 will not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser (i) (i>) 5 in such case is to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. In the instant case though Section 11A of Act, 1894 has become applicable, in the changed circumstance we deem it proper to mould the relief instead of holding the acquisition to have lapsed. Hence for the reasons stated above, we direct as follows: (a) The respondents shall construe 09.06.2008 as the relevant date and determine the market value prevailing as on that date applying the yardstick under Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land. (b)To calculate the statutory benefits on such amount including interest, the same shall be determined by taking into consideration the date of the Section 4 notification dated 17.04.2002 since the appellant was dispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to the same. (c)The date on which the fresh award is passed pursuant to this judgment and communicated shall be the date of cause of action for seeking enhancement of compensation if the appellant is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation offered. (d)The compensation determined in this case shall not give the cause of action to any other land loser whose land is acquired under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation. (e)The appellant shall be entitled to the cost incurred in these proceedings.” (iii) In view of the aforesaid ratio, the provisions of Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would not be applicable, where 80% of the compensation has been paid at the time of taking possession of the land under Section 17 (a) of the Act. The only remedy, available to the land loser, would be to insist upon an early delivery of the Award and payment of the compensation. 13. \W 14. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the compensation should have been calculated on market value of Rs.4.00 lakhs, for which they have given consent. However, 80% of the compensation was paid on a calculation of Rs.3.50 lakhs and therefore, requirement of Section 17 (a) of the Act, have been made. The respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, at paragraph No.6 have stated they had initially negotiated at market value of Rs.4.00 lakhs per acre but subsequently, accepted the reduced market value Rs.3.50 lakhs per acre by signing the affidavit on 20 Rupees Stamp Paper. In such circumstance, it would have to be held that the acquisition authorities have paid 80% of the tentative compensation fixed at that point of time. In view of the binding law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd, it must be held that the delay in passing the Award would not affect the acquisition process or the vesting of the land with the State. In these circumstances, the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.11.2016. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed. not at Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. One CC to Sri. V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] 5>5^ ^ y ■/ y 5. One CC to Sri. P Prabhakar Rao Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 6. 7. GSC HIGH COURT DATED;29/04/2025 ORDER WA.No.1531 of 2017 X H MAY 2025. g Current beciion ^y/ >4£espATC«!2^ -a ALLOWING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS