APHC010179562020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11478/2020 Between: 1. CHALAMALA YELLA REDDY @ YELLAIAH,, S/O. LAKSHUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. KULLURU VILLAGE, KALUVAY MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (LAND ACQUISITION), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUMTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA, SOMASILA PROJECT, UNIT-IV, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR LA, GNSS, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. CHALAMALA JANARDHANA REDDYJANNAIAH, S/O. LAKSHUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. KULLURU VILLAGE, KALUVAY MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 Issue a Writ order or direction more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by questioning the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3, who has failed to consider the representations, dated 24.11.2018 and 28.04.2020 and made enquiry on the objections of the petitioner in questioning the claim 2 awarded to the 4th respondent In Award No. 5/98-99 dated 30-10-1998, Reach no. Vi ( lands ), Konapuram Village, Nandaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and trying to disburse the balance Compensation amount to a tune of Rs. 3,79,50,605/- to the elw respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 and 4 not to disburse any amount to the 41/) respondent for his claims in Award No. 5/98-99 dated 30-10-1998, Reach no. Vi ( lands ), Konapuram Village, Nandaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, and to do enquiry on the petitioner representations and direct to file a report before this Hon'ble court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay the Order dated 03.02.2020, in EP No. 1 / 2019 in LAOP No. 281/2000, on the file of the Hon’ble court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant leave to file reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in WP.no. 11478 of 2020 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 2. The following issue arises for consideration of this court: 3 After the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and after the proceedings have become final, at the stage of execution of the award, can the claimant raise an issue that the compensation paid was less than the amount due as per the shares mentioned under the sale deed executed in favour of the claimant and other co owners of the land? Do land acquisition authorities have jurisdiction to consider these issues and conduct an enquiry in the said regard? 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not apportioning the land acquisition compensation in terms of the shares specified in the sale deed bearing document No.12-86 of 1987, purchased by him along with his brother, the unofficial respondent No.4 herein and two others. It is contended that he and the unofficial respondent No.4, along with others, purchased a property over an extent of Ac.1.98 cents located at Sy. No.249, Konapuram Village, Nandaluru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The said property was the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings. The land acquisition officer issued proceedings, vide draft notification under sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 16-10-1995, for the acquisition of the subject land, along with other lands, prone to submersion under the Somasila Canal. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was passed on 2-11- 1996. An award enquiry was conducted on 27-10-1998, and on 30-10-1998, the award was passed. Since the LAO did not grant adequate compensation, the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein jointly filed a petition under Section 18 of the LA Act claims enhancement of compensation and the award 4 of compensation for the structures and trees. The same was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, under LAOP No. 281/2000. The learned senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, passed the award, enhancing the compensation for the land and awarding compensation for the structures and trees on the subject land. Aggrieved by the said award, the land acquisition officer filed an appeal before the High Court in LAAS No 516 of 2010. The said appeal was dismissed by the erstwhile composite High Court for the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad on 09-08-2018. After disposal of the said appeal, the petitioner herein made a representation to the authorities stating that he and his brother are co-owners of the subject property of 1.98 cents. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a share of Ac 0.49 ½ cents of land as per the sale deed. It is stated that the petitioner’s brother had prepared a claim statement showing a lesser extent in the case of the petitioner, while claiming the entire extent as his own and trusting his brother in good faith, the petitioner had signed the claim statement without further verification. Thus, the petitioner sought a grant of compensation to the petitioner herein in respect of ac.0.49 ½ cents of land. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy argues that the petitioner's brother committed fraud on the court by suppressing a sale deed that delineates the share of each co-owner in the subject land, of which the petitioner is one, and that the said document clinches the issue. If the same had been produced before the court and the appropriate authorities, before the land acquisition award was passed, the 5 petitioner would have been granted proportionate compensation commensurate with his share. The petitioner is illiterate and, having regard to the domestic issues of losing his wife and son-in-law, believed the younger brother and allowed him to look after the litigation and signed the claim statement believing his word. The learned counsel thus strenuously argues that the 4th respondent deliberately concealed the document from the court, thereby playing a fraud upon the court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the unofficial respondent No.4 herein has suppressed all the documents of the sale deed. Thus the petitioner was deprived of claiming the compensation in terms of the shares mentioned under the sale deed. The said act on the part of the respondent No.4 in suppressing the documents itself is a fraud. 6. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the fraud vitiates everything relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rani Aloka Dudhoria and others Vs. Goutam Dudhoria and others 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that fraud vitiates everything and suppression of the documents also amounts to fraud on the Court and the effect of commission of fraud must be taken note of. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & others2, Md. Qhairunnisa Begum Vs. Shaik 1 2009 (4) ALD 79 (SC) 2 Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.7777 of 2023, dated 23.07.2025 6 Kusheed Begum and others 3 , A.V. Papayya Sastry & others Vs. Government of A.P & others4 and Dr. G.H. Grant V. the State of Bihar5. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant V. the State of Bihar, held as under: “18. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all disputes about the quantum of compensation must be decided by resort to the procedure prescribed by the Act: it is also intended that disputes about the rights of owners to compensation being ancillary to the principal dispute should be decided by the Court to which power is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment, but extends to adjudication of disputes as to the persons who are entitled to receive compensation, and there is nothing in S.30 which excludes a reference to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of land has, since the award, devolved.” 8. In the said judgment it was further held that: “19. The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, to apportion the amount of compensation between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation: the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the 3 2013 (3) ALD 254 (DB) 4 Judgement of Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Civil) No.5097 – 5099 of 2004, dated 07.03.2007 5 AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 237 7 title to compensation: that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under S. 18 or under S. 30 or in a separate suit. Payment of compensation, therefore, under S. 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State or its liability to pay compensation (Subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under S. 30 or by a separate suit.” 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was an oral family partition amongst the family members, in the said partition the petitioner was awarded only share of Ac.0.05 cents and on the basis of the said partition and as per the shares mentioned therein the properties are being enjoyed and that there is no illegality in the method of apportionment of the compensation. 10. Considered the rival submissions. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings, alleging that his brother, the unofficial respondent No.4 herein, has played fraud. 11. In light of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. G.H. Grant V. the State of Bihar6, and as the stage of reference under Sections 18 and 30 has already been crossed, this Court, under Article 226, cannot issue a direction to the respondents as sought by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition. If any grievance about the apportionment of the claim, the petitioner should avail his remedy before an appropriate Civil Court, as the 6 AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 237 8 Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as modified by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Rajampet in LAOP.No.281/2000 became final. After the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and after the proceedings have become final, at the stage of execution of the award, without modifying the application filed under Sec.18 of the Act based on which the decree was passed in LAOP.No.281/2000, the petitioner cannot maintain the subject writ petition. 12. In view of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 19.02.2026 MSI 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11478/2020 Dated: 19.02.2026 MSI