APHC010570592017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16281/2017 Between: 1. SRI RAYAVARAPU PULLAIAH,, S/O KONDALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO.20-16-42/4, RAMACHANDRA RAO PET, BESIDE STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. SMT. RAYAVARAPU SUNITHA,, W/O SRI RAYAVARAPU PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: R/O D.NO.20-16-42/4, RAMACHANDRA RAO PET, BESIDE STATE BANK OF INDIA, ' RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. SRI RAYAVARAPU MANIKANTA,, S/O RAYAVARAPU PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: R/O D.NO.20-16-42/4, RAMACHANDRA RAO PET, BESIDE STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAHMUNDRY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI 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 toto declare the action of the Respondents in not issuing the delivery certificates to the Petitioners in respect of Ac.1-70 cents of land in Sy. No. 43/7 of Rajahmundy Village, East Godavari district and Ac.3-60 cents in Sy. No. 43/7 and 44/3A of Rajahmundry Village, East Godavari district is in gross violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to issue delivery certificates in respect of subject lands and further orders this Hon'ble Court pleased to make and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, as otherwise the Petitioners herein will suffer irreparable loss and injury. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 20000 OF 2017 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 to direct the Respondents to consider to dispose of the representation filed by the Petitioners on fli.te-tiloqpending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, as otherwise the Petitioners herein will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 2. Sri R. Kondal Rao was the owner of Ac.1.90 cents in Sy.No.43/7 part and Ac.1.50 cents of Sy.No.44/3A part of Rajahmundry Rural Village. Similarly, his wife, Smt. R. Venkata Lakshmi was the owner of Ac.1.90 cents of land in Sy.No.43/7 part of Rajahmundry Rural Village. These lands and the lands belonging to other persons in the vicinity, to an extent of Ac.28.47 cents were requisitioned, in the year 1978, under the provisions of the Defence Internal Security of India Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), for the purpose of quarrying the stone and for construction of Godavari Barrage. An award was also passed, on 01.05.1980, by the Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Rajahmundry. In this award, Sri R. Kondal Rao was granted compensation of Rs.1,14,920/- and Smt. R. Venkata Lakshmi was granted compensation of Rs.64,220/-. The provisions of the Act provides for taking over lands on temporary basis, from the land owners, wherever such land is required, for any of the purpose mentioned under the Act. This would mean that lands, taken over under the provisions of the Act, would have to be given back to the land owners after the purpose for which the lands had been taken, had been fulfilled. 4 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 3. In the present case, the purpose for which the land had been taken over is for construction of Godavari Barrage. The said construction had been completed. Thereafter, the owners of the land which had been taken over, under the aforesaid award, dated 01.05.1980, had been agitating for return of these lands. As the lands were not being returned, various Writ Petitions came to be filed before this Court. W.P.No.23867 of 1996 was filed by one Sri B. Apparao and others, for handing over the possession of the land. The said Writ Petition had been disposed of, by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, with a direction to the Authorities to hand over possession of the land belonging to the petitioners therein. Similarly, in W.P.No.2681 of 1997, which was also filed by Sri B. Apparao, a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court had closed the Writ Petition, after recording that the land in question in the Writ Petition, had been handed over to the Writ Petitioners and their legal representatives. 4. The petitioners herein, who are the son, daughter-in-law and grand-son of Sri R. Kondal Rao and Smt. R. Venkat Lakshmi, had been giving various representations, including a representation, dated 25.06.2014, for return of the lands taken over from them. The petitioners had thereafter, approached the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad, for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.1761 of 2015, for return of their lands. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 16.02.2015, with a direction to the respondent Authorities to take a decision on the representation 5 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 of the petitioner, dated 25.06.2014. It may also be noted that in this Judgment, the learned Single Judge had recorded the instructions received by the learned Government Pleader from the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry. In these instructions, it was stated that the petitioners had been paid compensation for the land acquired from them and also enhancement of compensation and consequently, had been handed over by a letter, dated 11.09.1989, reporting that their Department propose to retain certain extents of land for carrying out balance works, maintenance works and flood protection works due to which the request of the petitioners cannot be considered. 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in issuing the necessary delivery certificates to the petitioners, in respect of their lands, have again approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that their land is not being returned, despite the land of other similarly situated owners having been returned. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the land is not required any more by the respondent Authorities and requires to be returned to the petitioners. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry. In these instructions, it is stated that the parents of the 1st 6 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 petitioner herein had been paid compensation. Apart from this, they had also moved applications for further compensation and the same had also been allowed and further compensation had also been paid. It is further stated that the land in question had now been recorded as Government Poramboke “Godavari PWD” and that the said land is not fit for cultivation or for house sites, in as much as the entire extent of Ac.28.47 cents was acquired and registered as Government land. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also contend that some of the land owners had refused to part with their lands, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and consequently, their land was taken without payment of compensation, on the assurance that the said land would be returned to them after the necessary repair works and construction works had been completed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that in such situation, the land belonging to the other affected persons had been returned. However, in the case of the petitioners, the land had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was paid apart from the enhanced compensation after such request was made. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court would not be in a position to interfere in the present Writ Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 21.11.2025 MJA 8 RRR, J W.P.No.16281 of 2017 56 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16281/2017 21.11.2025 MJA