APHC010269672021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15622 OF 2021 Between: 1. CHALLA VASUNDARAMMA,, W/O SRIPATHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O OBULAMPALLE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. A. AYYA VEERAMMA,, W/O RAMA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O REDDIPALLE VILLAGE, ATLURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. KORIVI CHINNA PEDDUGARI RAMI REDDY,, S/O CHENNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O RAMANJANEYAPURAM VILLAGE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. CHENNURU BRAHMANANDA REDDY,, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. JAMMANA RAMA SUBBA REDDY,, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. SINGANA OBUL REDDY,, S/O PEDDA MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. SINGANA SRIRAMA REDDY,, S/O PEDDA MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. SINGANA ASHOK REDDY,, S/O CHINNA MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NGO COLONY, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 9. SINGANA NAGA MUNI REDDY,, S/O GURIVIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O NGO COLONY, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DIST. 2 10. REDLA GOPAL REDDY,, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 11. REDLA GOPAL REDDY,, S/O GOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O ATLURU VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 12. TATIREDDI VENKATASUBBA REDDY,, S/O CHINNASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE - MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 13. TATIREDDI VENKATA RAMI REDDY,, S/O CHINNASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VARIKUNTA VILLAGE, ATLURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 14. MUMMADI VENKATARAMANAMMA,, W/O VENKATA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O SALABADU VILLAGE, VONTIMITTAMANDAL, YSRKADAPA DISTRICT. 15. ARAVA LAKSHMI REDDY,, S/O CHINNASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NALLATIMMAYAPALLE VILLAGE, NANDALURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 16. ARAVA LAKSHMAMMA,, W/O VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O MADHAVARAM VILLAGE, VONTIMITTAMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 17. ARAVA AYYAVARU REDDY,, S/O KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KONDURU VILLAGE, ATLURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 18. ARAVA SEETHAMMA,, W/O SUBBA RAYUDU @ SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CHENNURU VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 19. ARAVA SRINIVASULU REDDY,, S/O VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O MADHAVARAM VILLAGE, VONTIMITTAMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 20. PONNAVOLU PITCHAMMA,, W/O SAMBASIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O GOTURU VILLAGE, VALLURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 21. KORIVI CHENNA REDDY,, S/O PEDDACHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O SIDDOUTAM VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 22. KORIVI CHENNA REDDY,, S/O PEDDACHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3 23. KORIVI SHEKAR REDDY,, S/O CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 24. BOVILLA CHENCHANNAM,, W/O AYYAVARU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BODISETTIPALLI VILLAGE, ATLURUMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 25. BOVILLA VENKATASUBBA REDDY,, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 26. BATTALA VENKATARAMAIAH,, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 27. BATTALA LAKSHMI DEVI,, W/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BADVEL VILLAGE -MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (TGP UNIT KADAPA DISTRICT) YSR KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA. 3. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, (LA),(GNSS, KADAPA DISTRICT) GALERUNAGARISRUJ ALASRAVANTHI, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA), TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, UNIT-II, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NTR T.G.P, TIRUPATHI CHITTOR DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF SOMASILA PROJECT DIVISION NO 4, ATMAKUR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. JOINT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA 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 toFor the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed 4 that this Honble Court may pleased to issue a Writ Of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of order or direction one in nature Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioners for payment of compensation with interest and all statutory benefits as per procedure established by law and as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 pursuant to the 4 (1) notification dated 03.11.2007 and further in not passing a separate Award for Rehabilitation and Resettlement as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation in Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the land admeasuring of an extent of Ac.19.94 cents of land of Jonnavaram Village of Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District, by extending all statutory benefits and pay the compensation forthwith with interest and further compounding penal interest etcetera from the date of taking over possession and till date of payment of the compensation further pass an award in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation in Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and further in not passing a separate award for rehabilitation and resettlement as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 after duly considering the claims and objections of the petitioners herein dated 03.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. Prayer is amended as per the Court's Order dt.16.06.2025 in I.A.No. 01 of 2025. 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 pleased to direct the 4th respondent forthwith call for the report from the 7th respondent Joint Director, Agriculture in terms of the Endorsement dt.18.03.2021 and pay the compensation immediately, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 for filing counter affidavit in the writ petition no 15622/2021 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 5 pleased to issue a Writ Of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of order or direction one in nature Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not considering the case of petitioners for payment of compensation with interest and all statutory benefits as per procedure established by law and as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 pursuant to the 4 (1) notification dated; 03.11.2007 and further in not passing a separate Award for Rehabilitation and Resettlement as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation in Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the land admeasuring of anextent of Ac. 19.94 cents of land of Jonnavaram Village of Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District, by extending all statutory benefits and pay the compensation forthwith with interest and further compounding penal interest etcetera from the date of taking over possession and till date of payment of the compensation further pass an award in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation in Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and further in not passing a separate award for rehabilitation and resettlement as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 after duly considering the claims and objections of the petitioners herein dated 03.02.2025 and 28.03.2025 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Atchyuth, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 2. It is contended that the petitioners are owners of the following extents of land situated in Jonnavaram Village, Atloor Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as 6 the same has been devolved upon them by inheritance. The details of the same are: Sl.No. Name of the owner/petitioner Extent Sy.No. 1 Challa Vasundaramma 0.52 236/1 2 A.Ayya Veeramma 1.04 236/1 3 KoriviChinna Peddugari Rami Reddy 1.36 236/2 4 ChennuruBrahmananda Reddy 0.76 236/3 5 Jammana Rama Subba Reddy 0.37 236/3 6 SinganaObul Reddy 0.25 236/4 7 SinganaSrirama Reddy 0.12 236/4 8 Singana Ashok Reddy 0.37 236/4 9 Singana Naga Muni Reddy 0.36 236/4 10 RedlaGopal Reddy 0.34 236/5 11 RedlaGopal Reddy 0.34 236/5 12 Tatireddi VenkataSubba Reddy 0.35 236/6 13 Tatireddi Venkata Rami Reddy 0.60 236/6 14 Mummadi Venkata Ramanamma 0.62 236/6 15 Arava Lakshmi Reddy 0.62 237/1 16 Arava VenkataSubba Reddy 0.44 237/1 17 AravaAyyavaru Reddy 0.44 0.18 237/1 237/2 18 Arava Seethamma 0.44 0.18 237/1 237/2 19 AravaChinnaSubba Reddy 0.44 20 AravaSrinivasulu Reddy 0.18 237/2 21 PonnavoluPitchamma 0.80 1.78 237/2 240 22 KoriviChenna Reddy 0.27 0.08½ 237/3 242/2 7 23 KoriviChenna Reddy 0.27 0.08½ 237/3 242/2 24 KoriviShekar Reddy 0.70 237/3 25 BovillaChenchamma 1.77 240 26 Bovilla VenkataSubba Reddy 1.77 240 27 Battala VenkataRamaiah 28 Battula Lakshmi Devi 2.36 243/2 19.94 3. It is further contended that the respondents have acquired the entire Jonnavaram village for submergence of backward of Somasila Reservoir, except an extent of Ac.204.50 cents. During the peak season the leftover lands were inundated/submerged. Therefore, invoking the urgency clause, a draft notification was issued for the acquisition of the balance extent of lands of the said village, which are Ac.204.50 cents. At the time of the notification, 80% of the compensation was paid in advance to take possession of the lands. The award was passed on 04.03.2009 in respect of Ac.184.37 cents out of the total extent Ac.204.50 cents, leaving the lands owned by the petitioner. There was correspondence among the respondents regarding whether to acquire the subject lands or recover the compensation already paid at the time of notification. However, the respondents did not make any decision either for the payment of compensation or the passing of the award. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that entire village is inundated and compensation to all the properties in the village have been paid except the petitioner’s lands. The lands are highly prone for submersion thus petitioners 8 are unable to maintain themselves since they are unable to carry out any agricultural activities. Thus, it is contended that after issuance of notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’) had come into effect. It is argued by Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the light of provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act of 2013, since no award was passed after the notification, that was issued under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents must initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for acquisition of lands and pass award. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that proposals for payment of the remaining 20% of the compensation to the petitioners were made. However, the office of the CCLA returned the said proposals and requested to take necessary action in terms of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 6. The 5th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the initiation of a requisition for the acquisition of the above FRL lands is a policy matter, and that permission from the Government is necessary for the project authorities to initiate the requisition. It is stated that the issue was pending with the Government. It is further submitted that as the matter was under the consideration of the Government (as on the date of counter-affidavit), further action would be taken in accordance with the directions of the Government 9 regarding the acquisition of the balance extent, of the petitioners to an extent of 12.41 acres situated in Reach No.IX of Jonnavaram Village of Atlur Mandal in YSR Kadapa District. 7. The 5th respondent filed additional counter affidavit stating that the government has accorded permission vide proceedings dated 21.09.2023 for acquisition of the petitioners lands of an extent of Ac.12.41 cents. In consequence thereof the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.11.2023 submitted the proposals to the 1st respondent, wherein 8 weeks time was sought to complete the entire process of acquisition and to pay compensation as per the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Accordingly valuation proposals were submitted for the total extent of Ac.19.94 cents in Reach No.IX, Jonnavaram village and the same were approved by the 3rd respondent. 8. It is stated by the respondents that 80% of compensation was paid to the land holders on 10.07.2008 for the total extent of Ac.204.50 cents in Reach IX, including the land of the petitioners. However, the Executive Engineer of Division I Somasila requested for deletion of the subject land of Ac.19.94 cents from the acquisition. Accordingly, award was passed for an extent of Ac.184.37 cents, excluding Ac.19.94 cents. Thereafter, it was felt necessary to acquire Ac.7.53 cents out of excluded extent Ac.19.94 cents. However, the Government vide memo dated 21.09.2023 accorded permission for acquisition of the balance extent of the Ac.12.41 cents as well along with Ac.7.53 cents. Thereafter, valuation was approved vide proceedings dated 10 18.12.2024 for payment of balance 20% of the compensation by the Special Collector (LA) for the balance land of Ac.19.94 cents. Accordingly, notice under Section 21(1) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 dated 10.01.2025 was issued for the total extent of Ac.19.94 cents. 9. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that, since the award was not passed under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, the provisions of Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 would come into play and the petitioners are entitled to be granted compensation on the basis of the market value as on the date of coming into force of the RFCTLARR Act, and the other benefits conferred under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, including Rehabilitation and Resettlement. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition strongly opposes the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners are entitled to compensation on the basis of the market value of the land as on the date of coming into force of the RFCTLARR Act, he further argues that the award for payment of compensation had already been passed in the case. Since an award in the case was passed before coming into force of 2013 Act, the land acquisition proceedings would continue for determination of compensation payable under the provisions of the old Act. In this regard he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation 11 Ltd., vs. Deepak Aggarwal 1 , Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal2 and M/s. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of U.P.3. 11. Considered the submissions. The land acquisition proposal in the instant case was initially issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for submergence of backward of Somasila Reservoir for the entire village of Jonnavaram Village, Atlur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. However, while passing the award the subject lands were excluded. In the meanwhile, the new enactment viz., RFCTLARR Act, 2013, has been promulgated in the place of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The provisions of the new Act contemplating a situation where no award could be passed after issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the old Act, it has been provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act, 2013 that the proceedings for land Acquisitions would continue as if the notification was issued under the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 12. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that no fresh award is required to be passed is not acceptable for the reason that if for example notification was issued for acquisition of 100 acres of land and the award was passed for only for partial extent of the land say 80 acres, the balance extent of 20 acres cannot be said to be covered under the award or it cannot be construed that award was passed for the balance extent of 20 acres as well. Similarly, in the present case, although a notification was issued for a 1 2022 LawSuit (SC) 886 2 2020 LawSuit (SC) 284 3 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1231 12 larger extent, the award was passed only for a partial extent of the notified land. The remaining land, which does not fall under the award, cannot be construed as acquired. The judgments relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader would not apply to the present facts of the case inasmuch as from the additional counter affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer-4th respondent herein reflects that pursuant to the proceedings issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 award was passed in respect of partial extent of the notified land and the subject lands were deleted from the acquisition proceedings stating fresh proceedings for requisition of the same would be submitted after verification at the field level with respect to FRC contour. Accordingly, award was passed for an extent of Ac.184.37 cents vide award No.5/2008-09 dated 04.03.2009 by excluding the subject lands of the petitioners as the same were falling under FRL 330 contour. Thereafter, PV proposals were submitted for approval, for payment of compensation of an amount of Rs.1,56,44,862/- towards balance compensation of 20%. However, office of the CCLA has returned the proposals vide proceedings dated 12.05.2022 to take action in terms of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 13. Thus, the respondents have issued a notification under Section 21(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 calling for objections of the petitioners herein for acquisition of the subject property. In pursuance thereof, petitioners have submitted their objections dated 03.02.2025. 13 14. In the light of the said proceedings, it cannot be said that the petitioners would only be entitled to receive the alleged balance 20% of the compensation. To be precise when the respondents have initiated proceedings under the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 all the provisions of said Act would come into play and the respondents are under obligation to pass orders in accordance with law as per the provisions of the said enactment at best, if any amount is credited to the petitioners account towards compensation under the old procedure the same would be given credit to while determining the amount of compensation payable. It is to be further noted that under the old regime the respondents had taken a conscious decision not to acquire the subject lands and deleted the same from the award. In the light of the same, it can be said that these lands were never acquired. In the light of the above, the judgments relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are distinguishable. 15. The respondents had initially deleted the subject lands from acquisition, however, having regard to the need that the respondents have sought to acquire the subject lands. In light of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate proceedings for determination of the compensation as well interest payable under Section 80 of the RFCTLARR Act, taking into consideration the market value of the land as of 01.01.2014. 16. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, further requested the Court to pass appropriate orders regarding 14 Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, seeking a direction to grant such benefits as contemplated under the 2013 Act. 17. Having regard to the said contention, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders to grant R&R at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a representation under the Act. If such a representation is made, the respondents shall consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 18. 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 Date: 31.03.2026 BSK 15 319 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15622 OF 2021 Date: 31.03.2026 BSK