IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3522 OF 2020 Between: 1. Kolimi Obulappa S/o. late K. Adeppa, Age : 70 years, Occ; Cultivation, Arumekalapalli H/o. Tekaluru, Chilmathur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. 2. A.Venkateswarlu S/o. Sadusetti J. Rangappa, Age : 54 years, Occ: Cultivation, D/o.No.3-112, BC Colony, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 3. Mangala Aadimurthy S/o. Mangala Venkata Ramanappa, Age : 71 years, Occ: Cultivation, D.No.1/67, Main Street, Chilmathur (V) & (M) Anantapuramu District. 4. Harijana Babaiah S/o. late Harijana Aadeppa, Age : 45 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.176, Thummalakunta, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 5. Nase Krishtappa S/o. late Nase Nanjappa, Age : 56 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.6-3, Thummalakunta, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 6. Uutukuru Narasimha Reddy S/o. Chinnapa Reddy, Age : 60 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 6-61, Thummalakunta, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 7. Kannampalli Venkata Lakshmamma W/o. late K. Chenna Reddy, Age : 60 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Aarumekalapalli H/o. Tekuluru, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 8. Adi Andhra Adimurthy S/o. late Narasimhappa, Age : 70 years, Oce: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.6-184, Thummalakunta, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 9. Adi Andhra Narasimhappa @ Peddinti Narasimhappa S/o. Harijana Narasimhappa, age : 71 3'ears, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.6-183-a, Thummalakunta, Chilmathur (V) & (M),' Anantapuramu District. 4=SF 10. M.Chand Basha, S/o.Vaheed Sab, Age : 59 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. 3-481, BC Colony, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. 11. F.Nizamuddin S/o. late Jaheeruddin Sab, Age : 68 years, Occ: Cultivation, ,K/0.3-253, BC Colony, Chilmathur (V) & (M), Anantapuramu District. ; I 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh /Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector Anantapuramu District, Anantapuramu. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub-Collector), Penukonda, Anantapuramu District. 4. The Managing Director A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (AP.IICL), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. The Zonal Manager A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (AP.IICL), Kurnool, Kurnool District. .. .Petitioners ,.. .Respondents I j: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS inaction of the respondents in paying difference of higher compensation per Mekala Pandu's more declaring the as case and in-terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assessment-I) Department dated 21.06.2016 to the original assignee or his legal heirs of the petitioners herein are as arbitrary, illegal, void and violative 14, 21, and 300-A of the of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents shall re determine for the lands each of the petitioners which was resumed and then apply the principle of re-determination of compensation legislation i.e Right to Fair Compensation Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement petitioners lands of Chilmathur Village and Mandal and as per new and Transparency in land Act 2013 in respect of pay higher compensation along with other benefits as arrived at and pay the same to the petitioners in the interest of justice. F lA ND- 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 to pay difference higher compensation to the petitioners forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: ASST.GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI GURRAM RAMA CHANDRA RAO, SC FOR APIICL The Court made the following: ORDER 7^ APHC010057822020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3522/2020 Between: ...Petitioners Kolimi Obulappa and others AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioners: 1.G Rajkumar Counsel for the Respondents: 1 .GP for Revenue (AP) 2.GP for Land Acquisition (AP) 3. Rama Chandra Rao Gurram The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu and others^ (Larger Bench) and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assessment-I) Department dated 21.06.2016. ...Respondents ^ 2004(2) ALD 451 2. Heard Sri G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. Both the learned counsels would submit that W,P.No.3520 of 2020 was disposed of by this Court. similar matter in 4. The Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.3520 of 2020, dated 07.01.2025 to this order. 5. In terms of the same, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall order as to costs. be no As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Anantapuramu District, Anantapuramu. The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub- Collector), Penukonda, Anantapuramu District. The Managing Director, A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (AP.IICL), Mangala giri, Guntur District. The Zonal Manager, A.P.Indt strial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (AP.IICL), Kurnool Kurnool District. One CC to Sri Rajkumar Grandhi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, SC for APIICL. [OPUC] Three CD Copies (Along with the Copy of Order in WP.No.3520 of 2020 dated 07.01.2025) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. gi T HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.3522 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS APHC010057842020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3520/2020 Between: Boya Aswarthappa and others ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: 1 .G.Rajkumar Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) 2.Rama Chandra Rao Gurram The Court made the following order: The writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu and others ^ (Larger Bench) and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assessment-I) Department dated 21.06.2016. 2. Heard Sri G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent 2004(2) ALD 451 T 2 KM,J W.P.No.3520of2020 Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 15 petitioners have received ex-gratia payment in the year 2008, which they have acceptedat the relevant time. However, despite the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra), which was holding the field, the respondents have not followed the said decision in awarding the compensation. \ 4. It is contended that the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu’s case has held that compensation for acquisition of assigned lands should be on par with the compensation paid for patta lands. Therefore, contends that the petitioners should not be denied the benefit of judgment of this court. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 argues that the land was acquired in 2008, and ex-gratia payment was made, which the petitioners have accepted. After lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assessment-1) Department, dated 21.06.2016, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Learned counsel, referring to the provisions of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, contended that the proceedings under the old Act would 6. 3 KM,J W.P.No.3520of2020 not lapse, as the possession of the land had been taken and compensation was awarded and the same has been paid. The petitioners, having received gratia payment after the acquisition, cannot now seek enhanced compensation under the new Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagan Slngh^ held that: m ex- “17. The High Court has issued a direction to pay compensation to the first respondent in terms of the 2013 Act. The said direction was issued in the context of the fact that the Court was deciaring the acquisition as iapsed notwithstanding the fact that the acquired iand was aiready used for an important pubiic purpose. Once it is heid that the acquisition under the 1894 Act continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not appiicabie to the acquisition. However, the appeiiant is entitled to receive compensation already determined under the award made under the 1894 Act. ” Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners had sought payment of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assessment-!) Department, dated 21.06.2016 and made a representation on 30.07.2019, but no orders have been passed on the said representation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.244 and 246 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench held that: 7. ^ 2023 see Online Se 833 4 KM,J W.P.No.3520of2020 “13. A perusal of the Full Behch Land Acquisition Officer Judgment of this Court in -cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekaia Pandu and dthersS, para 109, would go to show that more particularly, even in case where the lands assigned were resumed, the government lands are entitled to the market value of the land, extract the relevant portion of the said iudgment. which reads as under: assignees of the compensation, equivalent to It would be appropriate to 109. In the circumstances, assignees of the Government lands payment of compensation we hold that the are entitled to equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits with full owners of the land even In cases where the assigned lands are taken on par possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant or patta though such resumption is for a public purpose, l/lfe further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts provisions of the the assignees shall be to acquisition of the land under the land Acquisition Act, 1894, entitled to compensation for all other as owners of the land and consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, condition incorporated in patta/deed of 1894. No assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full owner of the land.” compensation as 8. It is relevant to refer to the decision 2017, by a learned Single Judge, wherein of this Court in W.P.No.44459 of the respondents were directed to 5 m KMJ W.P.No.3520of2020 consider the claims of the petitioners therein for payment of compensation in terms of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu and others (supra). Considered the rival submissions, In the light of decision of Larger 9. Bench in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra), there was no justification for the respondents in not following the said decision while awarding compensation to the petitioners in 2008. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the 10. petitioners be granted liberty to file a detailed representation before the Land Acquisition Officer/appropriate authority, seeking compensation on par with patta holders, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On such the application being made by the petitioners, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the principles laid down in larger bench decision of this Court, in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra). The respondents are directed to dispose of the representation within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. While disposing of the representation, the respondents shall bear in mind the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra). This direction is issued having regard to the provisions of Section 24 11. of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. T 6 KM,J W.P.No.3520of2020 With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. .\ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 07.01.2025 BSK 'f-