APHC010195902018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 8874 Between: 1. SMT.B.NEETI SHANTHA KUMARI, W/o. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O.SAKUNALA VILLAGE, ORVAKALLU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 8874 of 2018 NEETI SHANTHA KUMARI, W/o.RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION, SAKUNALA VILLAGE, ORVAKALLU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA RAVI KUMAR, CULTIVATION, SAKUNALA VILLAGE, ORVAKALLU MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned order in Rc.A.747/2017 dated 01.07.2017 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, confirming the orders of third respondent / Tahsildar, Orvakal Mandal in Rc.A.588/2014 dated 17.10.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under Act 30 of 2013 and pass such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ……..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 such other orders……” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. On the earlier occasion, in view of the submissions made, vide order dated 03.11.2025, this Court directed the 4th respondent to produce the original record pertaining to Proceedings dated 17.10.2014 for perusal of this Court. The same was placed for perusal of this Court. On a careful examination of the record placed before the Court, it is clear that no prior notice much less Notice dated 29.09.2014, to which no reference was made in the impugned proceedings was served on the petitioner. However, a copy of Notice dated 29.09.2014, the genuineness of which is very much in doubt, is available on record and on the reverse side of the said Notice, it is mentioned 3 that as the beneficiary details are not known, a copy of the Notice was put up on the land. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader referring to the other material on record sought to impress upon the Court that prior to passing of the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2014, objections were called for with regard to allotment of the subject matter land to the A.P.I.I.C., as required by way of ‘tom tom’ in the village, and states that no objections were received. He also submits that the concerned Gram Panchayat passed a Resolution dated 21.10.2024 in this regard. However, in the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2014, nothing is stated much less with reference to the so called objections called for by way of ‘tom tom’. 5. Surprisingly, altogether a different stand was taken before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, which could be seen from the order dated 01.07.2017, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “A notice has been issued to the Smt.B.Neeti Shantha Kumari, W/o.Ravi Kumar vide Rc.B/588/2014 dated 29.09.2014 of the Tahsildar, Orvakal. The Notice has been served to the Assignee by the Tahsildar, Orvakal on 29.09.2014. The appellant has not filed any objections during the stipulated period for filling of objections.” 6. The contradictory versions of the 4th respondent coupled with the aspect of non mentioning of reference to issuance of the Notice dated 29.09.2014 in the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2014 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the procedure as contemplated under Law has not been 4 strictly adhered to and the resumption orders have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. At this stage, it may be pertinent to mention that a learned Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar resumption proceedings dated 17.10.2014 in respect of the land situated in Survey No.336-C1 of the very same Sakunala Village in W.P.No.12844 of 2018 dated 14.02.2023. The learned Judge, after considering the matter, allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for compensation in terms of larger bench decision in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu and others1. It is not disputed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge had attained finality and further that W.P.Nos.8582, 10418 and 10469 of 2018 raising identical issues of resumption of the land, without following due procedure have been disposed of by this Court by recording the fact that after filing of the writ petitions, the respondent-authorities have paid due compensation, in accordance with the Law. 8. This Court, in the light of the observations made above and the decision referred to above in similar circumstances, is therefore, inclined to allow the writ petition by declaring that the proceedings dated 17.10.2014 are not sustainable in Law. 1 2004 (2) ALD 451 5 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and accordingly the respondents shall pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the subject matter lands in terms of the Law laid down in Mekala Pandu’s case referred to supra by initiating land acquisition proceedings, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 17.11.2025 BLV 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P.No.8874 of 2018 Dt: 17.11.2025 BLV 7