1 APHC010577522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29848/2023 Between: Narra Sunkulamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying interest to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Award No.Rc.A.227/2015 dated 23.12.2021, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rama Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Land acquisition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, despite of making representation dated 04.07.2023 requesting the respondent authorities to pay the interest on delayed 2 compensation, the authorities have not acted upon. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. Sri Rama Krishna, learned Government Pleader for Land acquisition while relying on the contents of the counter affidavit contended that, the lands of the petitioners were not acquired, they are government DKT lands resumed due to non-cultivation of the allotted AW land. He further submitted that, the payment was already made to the petitioners strictly as per the rates fixed by the District Level Negotiation Committee (DLNC) and in accordance with the consent award passed by the District Collector, Kurnool. He further submitted that, along with compensation including market value, 100% solatium, crop damage and all other admissible benefits were paid to the petitioners, as such payment of 9% & 15% interest does not arise. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. This court cannot decide whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on delayed payment, sitting under extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226. It is for the authorities concerned to decide whether the petitioners are entitled for such payment. Admittedly when a representation was made requesting for payment, the authorities ought to have passed a reasoned order on the same recording their reasons but in the present case, the respondents have not 3 done so. In view of the same, with the consent of both the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioners for payment of interest on delayed payment, if any, in accordance with law by providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS