APHC010507242023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26308 of 2023 Between: 1. MATTEM PENCHALAIAH, S/O.M.GANGAIAH, AGE. 75 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 2. VEMULANARASIMHULU, (DIED) L.R.SON VEMULA PENCHALANARASAIAH, AGE. 55 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 3 3. REVURU AMARAVATHI,, W/O.SESHAIAH, AGE. 38 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 4. BULAKAKULA MUNI REDDY,, S/O.PULLA REDDY, AGE. 50 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 5. SWAMA KRISHNAVENI, ,W/O.DHANUNJAYA REDDY, AGE. 50 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 6. VEMULA LAKSHMI,, W/O.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, AGE. 48 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 86MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 7. REVURU KRISHNA MURTHY, ,S/O.SUBBA RAMAIAH, AGE. 43 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 86MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 8. REVURU RATHNAMMA, ,W/O.BRAWHAIAH, AGE. 50 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 9. BULAKAKULA MUNI REDDY,, S/O.BUCHI REDDY, AGE. 70 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 86MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 10. MADDULURU SRINIVASULU, (DIED) L.R WIFE MADDULURU 2 RAJAMMA, AGE. 60 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 85MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 11. DUVVURU PENCHALAREDDY, ,S/O,SHESHA REDDY, AGE. 65 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 86MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 12. BANDI MUNI REDDY, ,S/O,SUNDAR RAMI REDDY, AGE. 35 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 13. PALAVELLI HARINATH, ,S/O,SREENIVASULU, AGE. 47 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 14. SK.JAVAJANNISA, (DIED), L.R.SON SHAIK KHADAR BASHA, AGE.52 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 15. MENTA RAMAIAH, (DIED), L.R.SON MENTAVENKATESWARLU, AGE 65 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 16. SK MASUMBEE, (DIED), L.R.SON SHAIK KHADAR MASLHAH, AGE.68 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 17. SK KHAJAWOUIDDIN,, S/O,SATHAR, AGE.61YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 18. SK NAGARACHI MASTAN, (DIED), L.R.WIFE SHAIK GOUSINNISA, AGE.62 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 19. PHUPATI PENCHALAIAH,, S/O,LAKSHMAIAH, AGE.55YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 20. VELUGOTI UMADEVI, ,W/O,NARAYANA REDDY, AGE.47YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 21. VELUGOTI RAVAMMA, ,W/O,SREEHARI, AGE.50YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 22. THUMMALA LEELAVATHAMMA, (DIED) L.R. SON THUMMALA UMAMAHESWARA REDDY, AGE.56YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 23. NALLAGALLA RAMAIAH,, S / O, CHENGAIAH, AGE.60YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, 3 S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 24. .KOTA KONDALA SYMALADEVI, ,W/O,MURALI MOHAN, AGE.54YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 8SMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. 25. LEBURU KOTA REDDY,, S/O,GOPAL REDDY, AGE.67YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 26. PACHIGARLA RAMANAMMA, (DIED) L.R. SON PACHIGARLA VENKATESWARLU,AGE.52 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 8SMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 27. PACHIGARLA KRISHNAIAH, S/A,BENZIMEN, AGE.45YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 8SMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 28. MANGALAPURI PEDDAVENKATAIAH, (DIED) L.R. WIFE MANGALAPURI RARNANAMMA,AGE.56 YEARS, R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 8SMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 29. PACHIGARLA SIDDAIAH, S/O,YOHALI, AGE.50YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 30. PACHIGARLA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O,NARASAIAH, AGE.65YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 31. SANNA BUJJAMMA, W/O,MASTHAN, AGE.65YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 32. PACHIGARLA PENCHALAMMA, W/ O,NARASAIAH, AGE.65YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE 8SMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 33. PALLIPATI VENKATAIAH,, S/O,ROSAIAH, AGE.73YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 34. PALLIPATI SUNDARAIAH,, S/O,ROSAIAH, AGE.62YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 35. NALLAGALLA RAMAIAH, ,S/O,CHENGAIAH, AGE.60YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 36. .KARIPAM VIZAKJAYANANDARAO, (DIED), L.R.WIFE KARIPAM KANAKA RATHNAMMA, AGE.70YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 4 37. KUNDRA LAXMI, NARASARNMA,WIO.SREENIVASULU AGE.65YEARS,RIO.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 38. AVULA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O.BALARAMAIAH AGE.60YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 39. GILAKAPATI PENCHALAIAH, ,SIO.NARASAIAH AGE.70YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE WILANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 40. PERUMALLA CHINNAKKA,, W/O.KRISHNAIAH AGE.65YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 41. MALLAVARAM RATHNAMMA,, W/O.VENKATARATNAM AGE.48YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 42. KONDAPURAM VENKATAIAH,, S/O.NARASAIAH AGE- 70YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 43. KUNDRA RAMANAIAH,, S/O.BAKKAIAH AGE- 68YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 44. ADURU BUJJAMMA,, W/O.VENKATESWARLU AGE- 50YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 45. MATHANGI PENCHALAMMA,, W/O.RAGAIAH AGE- 67YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 46. PILLAKADUPU PENCHALAMMA,, W/O.RAMANAIAH AGE- 70YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 47. PALLAMALA VENU GOPAL REDDY,, S / O.YANADI REDDY AGE-66YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 48. YANAMALA RATHNAMMA,, W/O.VENUGOPAL REDDY AGE- 64YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 49. PAVUJANNI MANASA,, W/O.DREENIVASULU AGE- 48YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 50. YALLASIRI RAJESH,, S/O.MANOHAR AGE- 5 35YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 51. GARLAPATI RAMANAMMA,, S/ O.RAMANAIAH, AGE- 50YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 52. NALLU SRIHARI,, S/O.LAXMINARAYANA, AGE- 38YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 53. PALAVELLE SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE,, S/O.VENKATARAMANAIAH, AGE-81YEARS,R/O.RAPUR VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAPURMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, MEZZANINE FLOOR, THIRUMALAI RAILWAY STATION MYLAPORE, CHENNAIAHTAMILNADU STATE - 600 004 ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of MANDAMUS Declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in granting only exgratia for the lands by his proceedings RCB (LA) 4574/2012 Dt.30-05-2015 as illegal, void, arbitrary and against the principles laid down in Land Acquisition Officer- cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Vs. Mekala Pandu and others (AIR 2004 (AP) 250) as confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012 dt.04-08-2014 and against to the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 6 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 7 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of MANDAMUS Declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in granting only exgratia for the lands by his proceedings RCB (LA) 4574/2012 Dt.30-05-2015 as illegal, void, arbitrary and against the principles laid down in Land Acquisition Officer- cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Vs. Mekala Pandu and others (AIR 2004 (AP) 250) as confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012 dt.04-08-2014 and against to the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners and pass such other orders..." 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation rather than the ex gratia payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lands of the petitioners were resumed for formation of new broad gauge line from Obulavaripalli of Kadapa District to Krishnapatnam Port of SPSR Nellore District and the respondent authorities have paid compensation in respect of other claimants on the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.39983 of 2015. Hence, seeking a similar direction be given to the respondents – authorities to pay compensation rather than ex gratia payment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under same acquisition, some of the villagers have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent – authorities for payment of compensation rather than ex gratia payment and the said Writ Petition was allowed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 30.07.2018 in 8 W.P.No.39983 of 2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred intra-court appeal in W.A.Nos.1543, 1544 and 1550 of 2018 and the said appeals were dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.08.2019. 5. While dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by the State, a Division Bench of this Court has relied on the judgment of a Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu and others reported in AIR 2004 (AP) 250, wherein the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the respondent – authorities to pay compensation rather than ex gratia payment treating the assignees as pattadars/land owners. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would request this Court to direct the respondent – authorities to pay compensation to the petitioners rather than ex gratia payment, on par with other claimants whose lands were acquired under the same notification. 6. The respondent No.3 filed counter and it is only contention raised by the respondent No.3-R.D.O. that the petitioners after lapse of eight years filed the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is not maintainable as per law and it is requested that it is to be treated as time barred and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, refuting the contention raised by the respondent No.3-R.D.O., has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others reported in 2013(1) SCC 353 for the proposition that rejection on the ground of delay justification and the Apex Court held that, "No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its 9 jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged, by delay on the part of the petitioners." 8. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others (referred supra), the Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020)2 SCC 569, held at paragraph No.13 in the following manner: "13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under 10 Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant." 9. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others (referred supra), the Apex Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2022)7 SCC 508, held in the same grounds. 10. As held by the Apex Court in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (referred supra), where the demand for justice is so compelling, a Constitutional Court must exercise its jurisdiction to promote justice and not defeat it. 11. It is settled principle of law that the Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of each case. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches, as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience. 12. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts 11 to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party’s defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. [See P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. AIR 1974 SC 2271; State of M.P. & Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 251; and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 768)]. 13. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged, by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide: Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 769; Collector, 12 Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 (2) SCC 107; Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur & Ors., 1992 SCC (2) 598; Dayal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 593; and Shankara Coop Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar & Ors., (2011 (5) SCC 607). 14. In the case of H.D Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1984 (2) SCC 337, the Apex Court condoned a 30 years delay in approaching the Court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. The Apex Court held that: “Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties, was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non fulfilment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/ constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial development.” 15. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court referred supra, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent – authorities to pay compensation rather than ex gratia payment, as held by the Larger 13 Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu and others reported in AIR 2004 (AP) 250. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 13.11.2025 siva 14 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26308 of 2023 Date: 13.11.2025 siva