APHC010529582022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 32714/2022 Between: 1. BYLUPATI CHINIALAIAH, S/O LATE SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED EMPLOYEE, RIO H.NO.46/358, BUDAVARAPUPETA, KURNOOL OWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL 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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, declaring the impugned order in Rc.A. 194/2015 dated 18-08-2022 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, confirming the orders of fourth respondent /Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal in Rc.A.588/2014 dated 17-10-2014 resuming the land 2 Ac.5.00 Cts in Sy.No.571 of Sakunala village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice and the rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under Act 30 of 2013 and pass IA 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 pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per the Government orders in G.O.Ms. No. 259 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 21-06-2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent dated 18.08.2022 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the resumption order passed by the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2014 and simultaneously disallowing the claim of the petitioner for compensation in view of the alienation of the subject land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.571 of Sakunala Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the original assignee of the subject land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.571 of Sakunala Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District vide DKT patta in Rc.A/588/2014 dated 17.10.2014. Ever since, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same following the conditions of the said DKT patta. Adangal/ pahani copies for the 1415 Fasli and 1418 Fasli disclose the name of the petitioner for the subject land as Khatadar/ pattadar and the enjoyer. 4. While so, without issuing any notice and conducting enquiry, the 4th respondent passed the resumption order of the subject land on the alleged ground of violation of D patta conditions under the category of non cultivation of the subject land without giving any opportunity for the 4 petitioner. The said resumption order was passed by the 4th respondent on 17.10.2014 and the said land was alienated and handed over to the NREDCAP Ltd., Kurnool on 03.03.2015 for establishment of Ultra Mega Solar Park in Sakunala Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. Only to avoid compensation, the respondent authorities concerned adopted the said method by way of forcible resumption without following any procedure and purposefully to avoid payment of compensation, they alleged violation of condition of D patta on the ground that it was not cultivated by the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said impugned action of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2014 and consequential alienation of the subject land dated 03.03.2015, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent dated 12.08.2022 and the same was disallowed observing that the petitioner is not even entitled for compensation for the subject land by way of the impugned endorsement dated 18.08.2022. It does not assign the grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal and reasons thereupon by way of speaking order except by way of the impugned endorsement. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the respondents submits that the subject land was alienated to the NREDCAP Ltd., Kurnool for establishment of Ultra Mega Solar Park along with other vast extents of the lands 5 situated in the said village of Sakunala and as the petitioner violated the condition No.2 of the D-form patta, the subject land was resumed by the Tahsildar vide order dated 17.10.2014 by following the due procedure specifically upon issuance of the notice and the subject land was subsequently alienated for the above said purpose and the claim of the petitioner was also considered by the authorities concerned for payment of compensation and as he was not entitled for the same, the same could not be paid to him whereas in respect of the other assignees and other land holders whose land was acquired for the above said public purpose they were paid such compensation. 7. As per the counter of the respondents, it is stated that the appeal of the petitioner against the resumption order of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2014 was considered and rejected and the claim of the petitioner for compensation alternatively was also considered and disallowed by way of impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 18.08.2022. 8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the order passed by this court in W.P. No.12844 of 2018 dated 14.02.2023 wherein the petitioner therein was declared to be entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the respondents therein were directed to initiate the land acquisition proceedings on payment of compensation in that case. 6 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, upon consideration of the rival submissions made and upon perusal of the record available, it is to be seen that, there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the DKT patta in favour of the petitioner for the subject land vide R.Dis.No.69/DAR/ dated nil.07.1975 and the adangals as referred above for the Fasli years 1415 & 1418 would show the occupation and enjoyment of the petitioner for the subject land. It is not borne out on record that, the petitioner consistently violated the condition No.2 of the D-Form patta and there is no contra evidence to show that the petitioner did not cultivate the land within a period of three years from the date of its assignment. 10. However on bare look of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the 1975 assignment patta was sought to be cancelled in the year 2014 which appears to be on the face of it as most unreasonable and unknown to the procedure established by law. When the subject land was required for any public purpose as shown above, the respondent authorities ought to have clearly acted upon and resumed the land from the original assignee/ petitioner by paying suitable compensation as per law. Instead, the respondent authorities concerned circumvented the due procedure and resorted to resumption proceedings for the purpose of further alienation under the garb of public purpose and while doing so, the statutory rights available for the petitioner were deprived by virtue of the impugned action of the 7 respondents as seen above denying the due compensation otherwise payable to the petitioner. It is not at the whims and fancies of the respondent authorities to assign the land and cancel the same leisurely after few decades throwing allegation on the original assignee that he/ she violated one of the conditions of patta. When there is no proximity of time for any impugned action of the respondent authorities concerned it gives rise a reasonable doubt in the mind of any prudent men whether the impugned action suffers from any ulterior motives or for any extraneous considerations. 11. On considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court unhesitatingly comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was deprived of compensation on flimsy ground of not bringing the subject land of assignment fit for cultivation within three years of assignment by alleging the same in the year 2014 when the assignment was made in the year 1975 itself. The long lapse of time itself shows that it was only invented for the purpose of avoiding compensation nothing else. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 18.08.2022 is set aside. Insofar as the payment of compensation is concerned, the petitioner shall be paid suitable compensation strictly in accordance with law for the subject land as it was alienated for the above said public purpose. Deserving 8 compensation has to be determined by the 3rd respondent and the same shall be paid within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 19.11.2025 NNN