APHC010487962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 1086 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent above named appellants present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Order dated.05.11.2025 in WP No. 1260 of 2023 passed by the Honble Court for the following grounds Between: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary Revenue LA Department Secretariat Amaravati Velagapudi Guntur District 2. The Special Collector, GNSS Project Kadapa Kadapa District 3. The Special Deputy Collector, cum LAO Telugu Ganga Project Unit ll Podalakur Kadapa District ...Petitioners AND 1. RAJANALA JAYAMMA, D o Late Ratnamma aged about 55 years 2. Rajanala Venkatasubbaiah, S o Chinnaiah aged about 48 years 3. Rajanala Narayanamma, W o Subbaiah aged about 62 years 4. Nadipi Venkatasubbaiah, S o Chinnaiah aged about 63 years 5. Modem Subbamma, W o Narasaiah aged about 72 years 6. Modem Chinna Subbaiah, S o Subbaiah aged about 69 years 7. Modem Venkata Subbamma, W o Narayana aged about 65 years 8. Modem Adinarayana, S o Rosaiah aged about 68 years 9. Modem Gangaiah, S o Gangaiah aged about 62 years 10. Modem Pedda Narayana, S o Rosaiah aged about 68 years 11. Modem Veeramma, W o Ramaiah aged about 60 years 12. Modem Adinarayana, S o Rosaiah aged about 55 years 13. Gandam Narasamma, W o Ramaiah aged about 63 years 14. Kandeboina Venkatasubbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 64 years 15. Kandeboina Narayana, S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 60 years 16. Bodduboina Subbalakshumma, W/o.Gopalaiah, aged about 38 years 17. Kandeboina Subbamma, W/o.Yerra Subbaiah, aged about 48 years 18. Kandeboina Pedda Subbaiah, S/o.Yerra Subbaiah, aged about 70 years 19. Kandeboiona Jayalakshumma, W/o.Nadipi Subbaiah, aged about 65 years 20. Kandeboina Subbaiah, S/o.Yerra Subbaiah, aged about 70 years 21. Pidugu Subbalakshumma, W/o.Subbarayudu, aged about 60 years 22. Kandeboina Chinna Subbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 58 years 23. Modem Chinna Subbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 55 years 24. Rasala Ramanaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 60 years 25. Modem Pedda Subbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 70 years 26. Gali Yellaiah, S/o.Guruvaiah, aged about 65 years 27. Gali Subbaiah, S/o.Guruvaiah, aged about 60 years 28. Burri Ramakrishnaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 70 years 29. Burri Chinna Gopalaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 65 years 30. Burri Parvathamma, W/o.Chinna Raja, aged about 55 years 31. Burri Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Raja, aged about 50 years 32. Burri Sivaramakrishnaiah, S/o.Rama Krishnaiah, aged about 48 years 33. Burri Lakshumma, W/o.Ramakrishnaiah, aged about 45 years 34. Burri Rajaiah, S/o.Rama Krishnaiah, aged about 50 years 35. Burri Adi lakshumma, W/o.Narasaiah, aged about 58 years 36. Modem Penchalaaih, S/o.Narasaiah, aged about 60 years 37. Modem Venkatamma, W/o.Narasimhulu, aged about 55 years 38. Burri Chinnakka, W/o.Chinna Gopalaiah, aged about 70 years 39. Burri Krishnaiah, S/o.Ramakrishnaiah, aged about 62 years 40. Burri Rajagopalaiah, S/o.Gopalaiah, aged about 60 years 41. Modem Kondamma, W/o.Subbaiah, aged about 55 years 42. Burri Pedda Gopalaiah, S/o.Kirhsnaiah, aged about 50 years 43. Bayanaboina Rukminamma, W/o.Lakshumaiah, aged about 48 years 44. Modem Ramaiah, S/o.Narasaiah, aged about 60 years 45. Modem Santamma, W/o.Subbaiah, aged about 55 years 46. Amanacherla Mallikarjuna, S/o.Chinna Subbaiah, aged about 60 years 47. Modem Santemma, W/o.Subbaiah, aged about 70 years ...Respondents IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant permission for filing the material papers IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 condone the delay of 267 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against dated.05.11.2025 in WP No.1260 of 2023 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of th IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 stay the operation of impugned dated.05.11.2025 WP.No.1260 of 2023 pending disposal of the writ appeal and Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondents: SUDEEPTHI POTLURI The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM I.A.No.1 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1086 OF 2026 COMMON ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri Rama Krishna Pativada, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellants and Ms. Deepthi Potluri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in I.A.No.1 of 2026 as also on the merits of the appeal. 2. This writ appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the writ appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1260 of 2023 filed by the respondents (writ petitioners). 3. The respondents preferred W.P.No.1260 of 2023. The prayer was that the authorities (the writ appellants) were not referring their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), to the competent Civil Court for fixing the just and fair compensation in respect of their respective lands and structures acquired and their applications dated 19.01.2004 were pending. 4. The writ petition has been disposed of by the order dated 05.11.2025 in the following manner: “5. In view of the above submissions, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and the civil Court is directed to decide the issue as to whether the petitioners have executed the consent forms, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both the petitioners and the respondents. 6. With the above directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the direction has been issued to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, with a direction to the Civil Court to decide the issue as to whether writ petitioners had executed the consent forms, and to pass orders in accordance with law after affording the opportunity to both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellants submit that the award was passed in the land acquisition proceedings dated 12.01.2004 which was a consented award. The consent of the writ petitioners was recorded in the award itself; they had also submitted that they would not make any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The requisite FORM-IV was also executed by the respondents which contained their respective signatures. The submission advanced is that it been a consent award of the year 2004; the writ petitioners also having received the compensation there under long back and the writ petition having been filed in the year 2023, after almost 19 years; the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued the directions issued. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others1 and laid much emphasis on the Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said judgment, which read as under: “8. After the said consent awards were passed, statements were also made by the respective villagers declaring that they would not approach „any court for enhancement of the compensation for any other reason‟. 9. It is not in dispute that in terms of the said consent awards, the amount of compensation included solatium and additional market value. The landholders, as noticed hereinbefore, also waived their right to file any application for enhancement of the amount of compensation.” 8. Ms. Deepthi Potluri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (writ petitioners) submits that a specific case was taken in the writ petition that the writ petitioners never gave the consent; it was not the consented award though it was so mentioned in the award. She further submits that the application for making the reference was filed through the counsel on 19.01.2004. The copy of the said application for making reference has been annexed along with the writ petition. A specific stand was taken in the Paragraph No.3 of the writ petition that the consent was not granted for the award; as also with respect to the representation/application for making reference. She further submits that though the counter was filed in the writ petition by the writ appellants, but the submission of the representation/application for enhancement of 1 (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 264 compensation under Section 18 of the Act was not disputed, though their stand was that it was a consented award, and therefore, there was no question of making the reference. Nowhere, the filing of the application was disputed. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 10. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has also been filed by the writ appellants seeking permission of the Court to file the following material papers: I. Copy of Order in W.P.No.6358 of 2017, dated 18.04.2019. II. Copy of Order in W.A.No.483 of 2022, dated 20.09.2024. III. Copies of Consent forms (FORM-IV Affidavit to be executed by the interested persons before the Land Acquisition Officer under Rs.10 Non-Judicial Stamp Paper). 11. The aforesaid material papers have already been annexed with the writ appeal. 12. The I.A. is allowed and the material papers have also been perused. 13. The learned Single Judge has directed to make the reference in view of the writ petitioners’ application filed under Section 18 of the Act, with a further direction to the learned Civil Court to decide the question if the consent was given or it was not so given. 14. We find from the record and the pleadings that the filing of the representation/application under Section 18 of the Act was not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the writ appellants in the writ petition. The representation/application dated 19.01.2004 is on record. The consent of the writ petitioners as recorded in the award has been disputed in the writ petition. Their specific stand is that no such consent was given and no FORM-IV was submitted by them. The award is dated 12.01.2004 and the application under Section 18 was placed on 18/19.01.2004, in which application also the consent as mentioned in the award was denied and disputed by the writ petitioners. 15. At the same time the submission of the learned Government Pleader for the State-Writ Appellants is that the writ petitioners have approached this Court after 19 years of the award and that too after receipt of amount of compensation under the award. If the writ petitioners had filed the application for reference under Section 18 of Act on 18/19.01.2004 itself, they ought to have approached at the earliest. 16. The question with respect to the consent or no consent is a disputed question of fact. It could not be determined in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same has rightly not been determined by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and its determination has rightly been left to the learned Civil Court. 17. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that if consent has been given for the award, the land owners will have no right to file the petition for reference. In State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others (supra), the consent was not disputed. In the present case, the consent itself has been disputed, which require determination by the Civil Court. 18. We are of the view that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge in issuing the directions for reference to the Civil Court. However, learned Single Judge ought to have directed the Civil Court to first determine such question of consent or no for the award. 19. In the peculiar facts, the learned Civil Court, shall before entering into the merits of the reference, first decide the question if the consent was given or not? The award is a consented award or not? And if the writ petitioners received the compensation without protest? And depending on determination of such questions any further action if so required on the merits of the reference, would be taken. 20. The writ appeal is dismissed, but subject to the aforesaid directions to the learned Civil Court concerned on reference being made pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM,J Dated: 19.09.2026 SRT 43 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM I.A.No.1 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 1086 OF 2026 Dated: 19.09.2026 SRT