APHC010174562018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7600/2018 Between: 1. SK. NIZAMUDDIN, R/O. D.NO.4/57, MAIN BAZAR, CHINNAMANDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL,KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUIDLINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER /, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,MINISTRY OF ROADS AND TRANSPORT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, REP.BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, NANDYAL, KURNOOL 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 to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not paying any compensation or exgratia in respect of the land in Sy.No. 587/1 2 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 to an extent of Ac. 0.54 cents situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to pay compensation or exgratia in respect of the land in Sy.No. 587/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.54 cents situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2 to 5 to pay compensation or exgratia in respect of the land in Sy.No. 587/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.54 cents situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the above writ petition 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 Pleased to grant leave to file the present reply in Counter filed by the respondent no. 2 in WP. 7600 of 2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not paying any compensation or exgratia in respect of the land in Sy.No. 587/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.54 cents situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to pay compensation or exgratia in respect of the land in Sy.No. 587/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.54 cents situated at Rayachoty Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District…” 2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.17 cents situated in Sy.No.587/1 of Rayachoty village and mandal, YSR Kadapa district from one „Nagarathnamma‟ on 16.06.2006 and ever since, the petitioner has been in possession of the same. 3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent acquired Acs.0.54 cents out of the subject land, for the purpose of laying outer ring road in Rayachoty village and mandal, however, as the petitioner was not paid any compensation, he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 26.12.2017 who in turn addressed a letter dated 31.01.2018 to the 3rd respondent to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. In spite of the 4 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 same, as the respondent authorities have not paid compensation to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the subject land formed part of the lands proposed for acquisition for formation of the Outer Ring Road at Rayachoty. In the said process, an extent of Acs.0.54 cents in Sy.No.587/1B was acquired by the authorities and as the revenue records reflected the name of Smt. G. Pavani Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma, as being in possession and enjoyment of the said land, the authorities, after due verification of the revenue records, paid ex-gratia to the said Nagarathnamma on 10.08.2015. Though the petitioner, claims to have purchased an extent of Acs.2.17 cents from the said Nagarathnamma under a document dated 16.06.2006, the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. The petitioner did not get his name mutated or incorporated in the revenue records pursuant to the alleged purchase dated 16.06.2006. The petitioner approached the authorities belatedly, by submitting a representation dated 26.12.2017, by which date, ex gratia compensation had already been paid to the said Nagarathnamma. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that one Syed Imam Sahib, Syed Khadar Vali and Syed Sabjan, purchased the subject land in a public auction conducted by PACS, Rayachoty, following default in repayment 5 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 of agricultural loans. Thereafter, they sold the property to Smt. G. Pavani Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma under registered sale deed bearing document No.1985/2006. Subsequently, the said Nagaratnamma sold the property to the petitioner under registered sale deed bearing document No.2492/2006 dated 15.06.2006. The petitioner contends that, although he purchased the property in the year 2006, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated only in the year 2013. Though he was the owner and in possession of the land at the time of its acquisition, the respondents failed to issue the requisite notices to him and instead paid the compensation to Nagaratnamma, who is the vendor of the petitioner. It is further stated that, after purchasing the property, the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records through „Mee Seva‟, and the said application remained pending. It is further contended that the revenue authorities were aware of the earlier sale deed in favour of Nagaratnamma and the subsequent sale in his favour. In spite of the same, the respondents paid compensation to the said Nagaratnamma highhandedly. 6. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. It is clear that the petitioner allegedly purchased the subject land from Smt. Galiveeti Nagaratnamma @ Pavani Ratnamma under registered sale deed bearing 6 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 document No.2492/2006 dated 15.06.2006 and that he is in possession of the same even as on the date of acquisition i.e., in the year 2013; that despite the registered sale deed, the respondents paid the compensation to Nagaratnamma without issuing notice to him. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that that the petitioner‟s name was not reflected in the relevant revenue records and as the name of Nagaratnamma was shown in the revenue records, compensation was paid to her on the basis of the records available at the relevant time. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner‟s name has not been incorporated in the revenue records subsequent to his alleged purchased in the year 2006. Having failed to get his name incorporated in the relevant records, the petitioner cannot put the blame on the respondent authorities that compensation was paid to Nagaratnamma without verification of the records available. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in S. Palani Velayutham and Ors., Vs. District Collector, Tirunelveli1, under similar circumstances held that notice for acquisition would only be issued to those whose names are entered or recorded as owners/holders/occupiers in the revenue records and that the acquisition officer is not expected to hold mini enquiries to find out whether there are any other persons interested in the land, in addition to those whose 1 (2009) 10 SCC 664 7 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 names are entered as owners/holders/occupiers of the acquired land. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “10. The Collector is not expected to hold mini enquiries to find out whether the persons whose names are disclosed, (other than those whose names are entered in the revenue records) are persons interested in the acquired land or not. Therefore no person has any right to assert that the Collector should recognize him to be a person interested in the acquired land, and issue notice to him, merely because someone informs the Collector that such person is also having an interest, if his name is not entered in the revenue records. 11. Of course, if the Collector is prima facie satisfied from his records that someone other than those whose names are entered in the revenue records, are also interested in the land, he may at his discretion, issue notice to them. If he is not satisfied, he need not issue notice to them. Who is to be “believed to have an interest” is a purely subjective administrative decision. Such persons have no right to claim that notice of acquisition should be issued to them. 12. Therefore we agree with the Division bench that notice of acquisition has to be issued only to those whose names are entered or recorded as owners/holders/occupiers in the revenue records and not to others.” 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that had the petitioner incorporated his name in the revenue records, he would have been paid compensation. Now, at this stage, as compensation has already been paid to Nagaratnamma in the year 2015 itself, it is open to the petitioner to 8 VS,J W.P.No.7600 of 2018 approach the competent Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit against Nagaratnamma for recovery of the compensation amount paid to her. 10. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach competent Civil Court by filing appropriate suit, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.09.2026 Gss