APHC010197212021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11324/2021 Between: 1. AYINAMPUDI TRINADHA RAJU, S/O TATA RAJU, AGED 86 YEARS, OCC RETIRED, R/O OF 50/5, N TYPE QUARTERS, GARIVIDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT. JAMPANA RADHARANI, W/O LATE SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O OF TALLAVALASA VILLAGE, BHIMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (L.A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARIVIDI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction, direction declaring the action of the respondents in paying Exgratia 2 under G.O.Ms. No. 1307 dated 23-12-1993 in respect of petitionoers lands Ac.4.25 Cts in Sy.No.13/3, Ac.1.07 Cts in Sy.No.14/1 and Ac.1.95 Cts in Sy.No.14/4 (Total 7.27 Cts) of Koduru village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal, arbi rary and in violation of Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation to petitionerrs in terms of G.O.Ms. No.259 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 21-06-2016 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 re¬determine and pay the compensation amount in respect of petitioners lands Ac.4.25 Cts in Sy.No.13/3, Ac.1.07 Cts in Sy.No.14/1 and Ac.1.95 Cts in Sy.No.14/4 (Total 7.27 Cts) of Koduru village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram Distric, in terms of G.O.Ms. No.259 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 21-06-2016 under Act 30 of 2013, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not paying the Ex gratia amount in terms of G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 23.12.1993 in respect of the subject lands of the petitioner which are over an extent of Ac.4.25 cents in Sy.No.13/3. Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.14/1 3 and Ac.1.95 cents in Sy.No.14/4 of Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 21.06.2016. 3. It is contended that the 1st petitioner was assigned land of an extent of Ac.4.25 cents in Sy.No.13/3, Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in 1982 and another extent of Ac.1.07 cents in Sy.No.14/1 and Ac. 1.95 cents in Sy. No.14/4 Koduru Village, Garividi Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in favour of one late Jampana Srinivas Raju, the husband of the 2nd petitioner herein. After the said assignment, the petitioners brought the land into cultivation by digging a bore well and raising a mango and Cashew nut plantation. In 1986, the subject lands were acquired without issuing notice to the petitioners and without paying compensation, on the pretext that the lands assigned in favour of the petitioners had been resumed. Challenging the same the petitioners have filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.2074 of 1992. At the relevant point of time, when the same issue has cropped up, the matters were referred to larger Bench in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O, Chevella Division, Hyderabad Vs. Mekala Pandu’s 1 case the larger Bench vide judgment dated 09.03.2004 held that assignees of the Government lands are also equally entitled for payment of compensation on par with patta land holders. Following the said judgment, the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.170 of 2002 and batch 1 2004(2) ALD 451 4 observing that where lands are resumed for a public purpose without initiating the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 the respondents shall pay the assignees) compensation equivalent to the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, as on the date of resumption of their land. In cases where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated, the respondents shall pass an award and pay compensation to the assignees in accordance with the provisions of the relevant enactments. It is contended by the petitioners that despite the said directions of the Division Bench, the respondents have failed to pay compensation. Thus Contempt Case was filed in C.C.No.1140 of 2018. After filing of the said contempt case, the respondents under the shelter of G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 23.12.1993, the paid ex-gratia to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners contend that as on the date of payment of compensation G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, was not in force since the same was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016. Therefore payment of compensation should be in terms of either G.O.Ms.No.259, or in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. When the said contempt case in C.C.No.1140 of 2018 was listed before the Bench, the respondents have stated before the Court that compensation amount has already been paid. Basing on the said submission, the contempt case was closed. As per the direction of the Division Bench in W.A.No.170 of 2002 and batch, the petitioners are entitled for 5 compensation for lands as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Assailing the action of the respondents in paying the Ex gratia amount under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 in respect of the subject lands the instant writ petition has been filed. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners are not entitled for payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 nor under G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016. Since, the subject lands are not private lands, the payment of compensation would not arise. It is further stated that they are not eligible to grant assignment under landless poor category. Therefore compensation was not proposed at the time of resumption of the lands. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2074 of 1992 (W.A.No.170 of 2002 & batch), Ex gratia of Rs.8,60,765/- was paid. The G.O.Ms.No.259, which came into force in 2016 is not applicable as the lands were resumed much prior to the said date. 6. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation as directed by this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case referred supra. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment of the erstwhile Composite High Court in Resu Rama Rao and others V. State of Telangana and others2 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bernard Francis 2 2019 (2) ALD 354 6 Joseph Vaz and others V. Government of Karnataka and others3 wherein it was held that: “57. We, therefore, in exercise of power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, find it appropriate in the interest of justice that the SLAO be directed to determine the compensation to be awarded to the appellants herein on the basis of the market value prevailing as on 22nd April 2019. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 LA Act. This shall be without prejudice to the rights/contentions of either party, in case they make a reference before an appellate authority, if they are so aggrieved by the fresh determination of compensation by the SLAO. We further clarify that, any other award which may have been passed pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge of the High Court shall stand nullified by this Judgment.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus contends that the petitioners are entitled to be paid compensation in terms of the provisions of GO.Ms.No.259. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would contend that, as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.170 of 2002 & batch, the order has been complied with as observed in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Government Pleader further argues that as far the computation of compensation payable under the provisions of Land acquisition Act, 1894 and G.O.Ms.No.1307, are one and the same. Thus the learned Government 3 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1 7 Pleader contends that the order of the Division Bench has been complied with and in the light of the same Contempt Case was also closed after recording the said submission. Thus contends that the petitioners cannot reagitate the issue that has attained finality. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, in terms of the latest clarification issued by the Government of India on this issue vide D.O.No.13013/01/2014-LRD((Pt.), dated 26.10.2015, if the lands were acquired prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the compensation has not been paid even by the date of commencing of the 2013 Act. While paying the compensation amount, market value as on the date of coming into force 2013 Act would be relevant to that effect. 10. In reply, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that in the present case, the land acquisition proceedings were concluded by the date of issuance of the above said memo. 11. Considered the rival submissions. The Division bench while disposing of the Writ Appeal No.170 of 2002 & batch, pursuant to the Full Bench decision of the Court in Mekala Pandu’s case observed as under: “In all those cases where the subject lands have been resumed for a public purpose, without initiating proceedings under the 1894 Act, the respondents shall pay the petitioners (assignees) compensation equivalent to what they are entitled to under the 1894 Act as on the date of resumption of their land. In cases where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated, the respondents shall 8 pass an award and pay compensation to the assignees in accordance with the provisions of the relevant enactments (either the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act) depending on whether or not the preliminary notification, for initiation of acquisition proceedings has been issued prior to or after 1.1.2014. In any event, the compensation, which the assignees are entitled to, shall be paid to them within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. In light of the above Judgment of the Division Bench, the submissions of the respondents that the compensation has been paid in terms of the 1894 Act have not been disputed by the petitioners. However, their grievance is for payment of enhanced compensation, in light of the Judgment in the case of Mekala Pandu and G.O.Ms.No.259, for payment of compensation in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thus, it is contended that, since the compensation remained unpaid even as of the date of G.O.Ms. No.259, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as provided under G.O.Ms. No.259. I fail to understand the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, having regard to the fact that the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.170 of 2022 & batch has attained finality, and G.O.Ms. No.259, dated 21.06.2016, was also available on the date of the judgment passed by the Division Bench. Therefore, this Court do not see any reason to agree to the submissions made by the learned counsel, 9 Sri Krishna Murthy for enhancement of compensation beyond the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.170 of 2002 & batch. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to agitate their rights, if advised, to make a representation to the respondent No.3 for enhancement of compensation. If any such application is made, the respondentNo.3 shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 12.03.2026 MSI 10 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 11324/2021 Dated: 12.03.2026 MSI