APHC010304282022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18051/2022 Between: 1. V VENKATA LAKSHMI, , W/O. V. SHANKAR SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NEAR R.G. ROAD, HANCHINAL CAMP (SHANTINAGAR), HANCHINHAL (K), RAICHUR, KARNATAKA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SANKAVARAM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT-ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SUB. COLLECTOR OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT -531118. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, S. RAYAVARAM, S.RAYAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 531060, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 5. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (NAOB) YELAMANCHILI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 531055, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2 ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents - authorities in including the petition scheduled land Ac. 5.00 situated in Sy.No. 422/2 of Vakapadu village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, presently Anakapalli district under Section 22 (A) (1) (a) of Registration Act list published by the 3rd respondent inspite of the fact that the petitioner father Sri. Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy obtained D- form Patta under Ex-serviceman quota and not paying the, compensation to the petitioner under L.A. Act though the petition scheduled land has been acquired/taken over by the 5th respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court reported in 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) and consequently direct the respondent authorities to pay the compensation in terms of L.A. Act to the petitioner for the land acquired to an extent of Ac. 5.00 situated in Sy.No. 422/2 of Vakapadu village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, presently Anakapalli district by the 5th respondent as the petitioner father is absolute owner and peaceful possession of the petition scheduled land by virtue of the patta granted to her father under Ex-serviceman quota and to 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 respondent authorities to pay the compensation to the petitioner under L.A. Act for the land taken over/ acquired to an xtent of Ac. 5.00 situated in Sy.No. 422/2 of Vakapadu village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, press Anakapalli district by the 5th respondent forthwith (as the petiti is only legal heir of Sri. Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy), pen disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 3 be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein to file the reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in WP No. 18051 of 2022 in the interest of Justice or otherwise the petitioner will be put irreparable loss and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein to file the in WP No. 18051 ofreply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2022 in the interest of Justice or otherwise the petitioner will be put irreparable loss and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 4 The Court made the following: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in including the petition scheduled land Ac.5.00 gts situated in Sy.No.422/2 of Vakapadu Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, presently Anakapalli District under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the Registration Act list published by the 3rd respondent in spite of the fact that the petitioner’s father Sri Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy obtained D-form patta under Ex-servicemen quota and not paying the compensation to the petitioner under L.A. Act though the petition scheduled land has been acquired/ taken over by the 5th respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner’s father was given D-form patta for the subject land in an extent of Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.422/2 of Vakapadu Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, presently Anakapalli District dated 05.08.1968. The petitioner claims that her father was an ex- serviceman and her father died on 21.06.1994. The petitioner’s mother also enjoyed the status of widow of the ex-serviceman as her father worked as Sepoy with service No.2539213 and during her lifetime also she enjoyed the title and possession of the subject land and her mother 5 died on 26.11.2015. Her brother died on 25.01.2007. Hence, she remained as sole legal heir of the deceased parents. But on verification in Meebhoomi, the petitioner was surprised to know that the subject land was shown as poramboke/ government land and the same is also shown in the prohibited list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. 4. The said action of the respondents in placing the subject land under prohibited list contrary to the D-form patta issued in favour of the petitioner’s father is illegal and behind the bank of the petitioner and her other family members in whose lifetime no notice was issued before changing the nature of the land. Since the subject land was alienated in favour of the NAOB project, the petitioner is entitled for compensation and no such suitable compensation is paid to the petitioner so far. Hence, this writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that, the land in Sy.No.422-2 was carved out from the old Sy.No.306. The land in Sy.No.306 stands classified as “G.U” with a total extent of Ac.1700.84 cents and it is registered as Konda. From which, the land in an extent of Ac.14.60 cents was carved out with a new Sy.No.422 which in turn was further subdivided into 4 subdivisions i.e., from 422-1 to 422-4. The land which was carved out from Konda poramboke land would obviously become a government land. 6 6. The writ petitioner claims that the land in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.422-2 was assigned to the petitioner’s father under the ex-servicemen quota. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India has filed a requisition seeking alienation of Government lands in Vakapadu village of S.Rayavaram Mandal for the establishment of NAOB. The vacant possession of the land to an extent of Ac.359.15 cents including the land to an extent of Ac.14.60 cents in Sy.No.422 in Vakapadu village was handed over to the representatives of the Defence Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam on 09.03.2007 pending finalization of regular alienation proposals. Since then, the lands are in possession of the Ministry of Defence. A1 notice was published in the manner prescribed by Board Standing Orders calling for objections if any, for alienation of the land to the Defence department and hence they were notified under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the A.P.Registration Act as government properties are prohibited for registration. 7. The Xerox copy of the Form-D patta shows that for an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.422-2 of Vakapadu village was assigned to Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy, but there is no mention in the patta that the land was assigned under the ex-servicemen quota. But the oldest adangal i.e., Village Account No.3 for fasli 1399 (year 1989) discloses that the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.422-2 was registered in the name of Pulleti Satyanarayana Murthy but not Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy under pattadar column with Khata No.304. 7 Another adangal for Fasli 1407 (1997) is found in which the land in Sy.No.422-2 is registered under the enjoyment of Ramakrishna Raju by way of prawn culture in tank. The land is registered as government land with the adanagls for the years 1405, 1406 and from subsequent to the said years. The land assigned shall be brought under direct cultivation within three (3) years from the date of the order and shall not be leased out in any manner and also cultivation shall be done by the assignee or member of his family. The entries in the old adangals disclose that the land was not in possession and enjoyment of Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy or his family members at least from the year 1997 onwards. It can be construed that the land was not in possession of Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy and the assignment granted in his favour might have been cancelled for violation of conditions. 8. The writ petitioner filed a representation dated 09.05.2022 before the District Collector, Anakapalli during Spandana, a grievance redressal programme requesting to incorporate her name in revenue records and also to pay compensation for the subject land. The representation was enquired and report was submitted to the Special Deputy Collector, NAOB, Yellamanchili vide the letter of the office of the 4th respondent dated 06.06.2022 stating that except in the adangal for the fasli 1399, the land is registered as government land and to take necessary action, the same has been informed to the petitioner by way of an endorsement dated 16.06.2022. 8 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contends relying upon the written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025 that a thorough search of the old records in the office of the Tahsildar, it is traced out that, Pulleti Satyanarayana Murthy was granted D-form patta in Sy.No.422/2 to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents vide D.C.No.34/77/A2, dated 05.08.1968. But the writ petitioner has stated that, her father Pullela Satyanarayana Murthy was obtained D-form patta under ex-serviceman category. Even if Pulleti Satyanarayana Murthy’s name is considered as pattadar as her father the said D-form patta was cancelled along with 9 other assignees during duly following the prescribed procedure dated 25.05.1978 by the then Tahsildar, Yellamanchili on the ground that the assignee did not bring the assigned land into cultivation ever since the land was assigned and the said D-Patta land was resumed to the government. And the entire extent of the land as stated above was handed over to NAOB authorities in the year 2007. Since then, the said lands have been in the possession of the NAOB including the petitioner’s subject land out of Ac.14.60 cents in Sy.No.422. 10. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is to be seen that ultimately, the D-form patta was traced out for the subject land vide D.C.No.34/77/A2, dated 05.08.1968 and resumption orders admittedly appears to have been not served on the original assignee dated 9 25.05.1978. When the assignment was made in the year 1968 it is not fair enough for the respondents to say that the petitioner or her family members did not bring the subject land in cultivation from the year 1997 onwards. If at all there is any violation of condition of D-form, proper notice must have been served and any resumption order shall be passed by following the due procedure even on the original assignee or his family members. As the subject land including the other larger extent of the land was handed over to the NAOB project, the petitioner at best may claim for compensation if she is otherwise entitled for the same. 11. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 enclosing all the necessary documents to claim compensation if any for the subject land within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall consider and dispose of her representation strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner giving due opportunity and upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. The written instructions of the 4th respondent dated 05.12.2025 shall be made as part of the court record. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 09.12.2025 NNN