APHC010557212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28691 of 2025 Between: 1. J.CHAKRAPANI REDDY,, S/O J.VENKATAMUNI REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O 1-80, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. J.VIJAY PRAKASH,, S/O J.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 74 YEARS, R/O 3-177, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. V HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O VSOMASEKHAR, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O 4-39, SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. S.K.RANI,, W/O (LATE) J.SOMSUNDAR, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. J.RAVINDRA PRASAD,, S/O J.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. J.PUSHPA,, W/O J.CHAKRAPANI REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O 1-80, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. L.SUSHI,, W/O L.NAGABUSHANA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O 3-135B, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. D.C.SRINIVASULU,, S/O DARA CHINNAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O 2-744-4, GANDHIPURAM, P AND T COLONY, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. J.JAYA SANKAR REDDY,, S/O J.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O 1 -81, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. D.VENKATA REDDY,, S/O VENKATARAMI REDDY, AGED 66 2 YEARS, R/O 3-104, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11. V.SOMASEKHAR,, S/O V.MUNIYAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O 4-39, SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 12. SILPAVATHI,, W/O V.VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O 159, SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 13. VENKATAPPA,, S/O (LATE) BAJJAPPA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. S.SIDDAPPA,, S/O MARDAPPA, AGED 77 YEARS, R/O SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 15. M.HARISH GOWD,, S/O M.VENKATAMUNI GOWD, AGED 29 YEARS R/O 4-1, SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 16. PAPANNA,, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O 2-26, SIDDAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 17. SUBBAMMA,, W/O LATE VENKATAMUNI, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O 4-1, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 18. D.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O D.VENKATA RAMA REDDY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O 3-104, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 19. NARAYANAPPA, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O SIDDAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRIC 20. SULOCHANAMMA, W/O M.VENKATAMUNI, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O 2-4, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 21. THIPPAKKA, W/O LATE RAMCHANDRAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O SIDDAREDDY PALLY VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 22. S.K.PADMAMMA, W/O S.K.SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O SIDDAREDDY PALLY VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 23. VENKATAMUNI,, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, 3 CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 24. K.SOMASEKHARA REDDY,, S/O K.SUBBA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O 3-75, DANDIKUPPAM VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 25. THIPPAKKA,, W/O (LATE) NETHAPPA, AGED 50 YEARS, SIDDAREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 26. BHULAKSHAMMA,, W/O KITTAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O APPIKONDENAHALLI VILLAGE, THIMMARAVATHANAHALLI, KOLAR, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 563136. 27. SANKARAPPA,, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED 86 YEARS, R/O 4-30, SIDDAREDLAPALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND ACQUISITION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SHANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE ANDHRA PRADESH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALAGIRI. ...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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent authorities in issuing Form-VI(A) under section 11(1) of Act 30 of 2013 to acquire lands belonging to the Petitioners herein, allegedly for Development of Airport at Kuppam in Chittoor 4 District, without satisfying proviso of section 26 of Act 30 of 2013 and proceeding further without providing relevant information and documents sought by the petitioners for filing more rational and meaningful objections for hearing under section 15 as illegal, unconstitutional and consequently set-aside notifications vide, R.C.No.D/190(Dandikuppam) 2025, R.C.No. D/190 (Maneendram)/2025, R.C.No. D/190 (Ammavaripeta)/2025 dated R.C.No.D/190 (Sonneganipalle) 2025 dated 16-08-2025 issued by District collector, Chittoor and may also be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to furnish the information as sought by the petitioners on 17-9-2025 before taking up procedures under section 15 of the Act, if the notification under section 11 (1) is still sustainable. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 5 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Art 226 Constitution of India for the following relief: "……. to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in issuing Form-VI(A) under section 11 (1) of Act 30 of 2013 to acquire lands belonging to the Petitioners herein allegedly for Development of Airport at Kuppam in Chittoor District without satisfying proviso of section 26 of Act 30 of 2013 and proceeding further without providing relevant information and documents sought by the petitioners for filing more rational and meaningful objections for hearing under section 15 as illegal unconstitutional and consequently set aside notifications vide R.C.No.D/190 (Dandikuppam) 2025 R.C.No.D/190 Maneendram/2025 R.C.No.D/190 Ammavaripeta/2025, dated R.C.No.D/190 Sonneganipalle 2025 dated 16.08.2025 issued by District collector Chittoor and may also be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to furnish the information as sought by the petitioners on 17.09.2025 before taking up procedures under section 15 of the Act if the notification under section 11(1) is still sustainable…..” 2. It is an admitted fact that a notification was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and published in a newspaper, detailing land required for an airport in Kuppam. The said notification was challenged in W.P.No.17220 of 2025 on two grounds: first, that a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the Act was not issued, and second, that only 15 days were provided for filing objections instead of 60 days mandated by Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 6 2013 (hereafter referred to as ‘Act’). The Writ Petition was disposed of with the observation that all issues raised in it would remain open. 3. Now the present Writ Petition is filed challenging that exemption of Social Impact Assessment Study as outlined in Section 10A of the Act and Rules framed under the Act in Form A(2) dated 22.05.2025 and the petition asserts that the study is must and essential under the Act, no justification for exempting it. The lands that are acquiring are agricultural lands and the petitioners will be put to dire straits and the petitioners are eking out their livelihood from agricultural produce and the petitioners have also raised objections for acquisition of the land in the Grama Sabha conducted on 22.08.2025. Furthermore, the respondent –authorities are advancing the process without providing a personal hearing, as mandated by law, disregarding the representations dated 09.09.2025 and 17.09.2025, in which the petitioners requested information regarding the project report and administrative clearances. The information is crucial and necessary to submit detailed and reasoned objections, but, despite a reminder dated 10.10.2025 proceeding ahead under Section 19 of the Act, undermining the opportunity for meaningful adjudication as provided for under section 15 of the Act. 4. The learned designated Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy, appearing for the writ petitioners, reinforced the affidavit averments and contended that a representation dated 17.09.2025 was submitted requesting the authorities to provide the project report information. They stated that they can submit their detailed objections. The senior counsel relied on the order in W.P No.19572 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018 of the 7 common High Court, where a learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to furnish the material sought by the petitioners regarding the project therein and further directed the petitioners to submit explanation stipulating the time. And also relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Union Of India Vs Shiv Raj and others reported in 2014 (6) SCC 564 that the hearing given to a person must be an effective one, not a mere formality under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is in parimateria with Section 15 of the Act. 5. The learned Advocate General for the State stated that the exemption notification under Section 10A of the Social Impact Assessment Study was issued on 22.05.2025 and that the petitioners have approached this Court after a significant delay with ulterior motives, arguing that the project serves a public purpose. He pointed out that the petitioners did not submit any objections to the notice dated 09.09.2025, as required under Section 15 (1) of the Act. The objections if any filed will be considered in accordance with the law, and he emphasized that the Section does not envisage to provide information as the petitioners sought. The declaration under Section 19 of the Act will be published after the detailed report from the authority is received, and the petitioners have the opportunity to submit their objections during the award inquiry. He relied on the order in W.A.No.1048 of 2016 dated 07.03.2018, reported in MANU/AP/0071/2018, to support the assertion that the petitioners can still submit their objections. 6. The four relevant para’s are extracted hereunder for better appreciation. 8 "(i) Like Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, Section 15 of the 2013 Act is also in three parts. Under sub-section (1) thereof, any person interested in the land, which has been notified for acquisition under Section 11(1), may submit his objections. While Section 5A(1) of the 1894 Act prescribes a period of 30 days, from the date of publication of notification, within which objections must be submitted, Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act prescribes 60 days as the period within which the objections should be submitted. Unlike Section 5-A(1) of the 1894 Act which does not specify matters relating to which objections can be submitted, Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act stipulates that the objections can be submitted with regards (a) the area and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired; (b) the justification offered for the public purpose; and (c) the findings of the social impact assessment report. It is with respect to these three matters alone, can objections be filed under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act. (ii) Before examining whether the objections submitted by the appellant-writ petitioners fall within anyone or more of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 15(1), the scope of Section 15(2) necessitates examination. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act (and Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act) makes it obligatory on the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections, and making further inquiry, he is required to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on 9 the objections. The legislature has made complete provision for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition, and for the disposal of their objections. (iii) The hearing, contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the 1894 Act (or Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act), is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition, and to make a report. The report of the Collector is not an empty formality as it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with his recommendations and the record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections, and make the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act (or Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act). (Womens Education Trust6; Kamal Trading (P) Ltd16). (iv) Section 5-A(2) of the 1894 Act (i.e., Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act) gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) (or Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act), or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same." 7. The judgment referenced by the learned Advocate General indicates that objections may be raised on the following grounds: (a) the area and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired; (b) the 10 justification offered for the public purpose; and (c) the findings of the social impact assessment report. Furthermore, there should be an opportunity for the objector to present their case to the Collector, arguing that the land is unnecessary for the public purpose outlined in the notification. The objector may also assert that the land proposed for acquisition is unsuitable and suggest that alternative land is available for the stated purpose. The hearing process must be meaningful and not merely a formality. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections and submissions made at the hearing given will denude the decision, of the appropriate Government, of statutory finality. 8. In this regard, it is imperative to extract Section 15 of the Act: Section 15 Hearing of objections. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to- (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c)the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making 11 such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section II, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government. (3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be final. 9. Section 15 (1) of the Act that envisages to file objections relating to: (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. 10. And as per Section 15(2) of the Act, the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard which is not empty formality and submit a report to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections. 11. Section 15 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and it is outlined that objectors can file their objections and the same has to be addressed by the concerned authority and when the Section outlines that objection has to be filed, petitioners cannot seek any information 12 regarding the technical and environmental permissions. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile common high court also indicates the same that the objectors have the right to submit their objections, which will be assessed by the authority appropriately. 12. For the foregoing discussion, as the Right to enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are given liberty to file their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the authority is directed to give an opportunity of hearing, as outlined in the Section and communicate the outcome of the decision to the objector. That the authorities have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, however no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.10.2025 siva 13 Reserved on 16.10.2025 Pronounced on 24.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28691 of 2025 Date: 24.10.2025 siva 14