APHC010453252018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21111/2018 Between: 1. K.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE- 62 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. D.NO. 16/1000/3, SRN COLONY, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AP 2. K.DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE K.CHNUKYA, AGE- 57 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O. D.NO.11, RAKESH BUILDINGS, GURUMURTHY REDDY COLONY, BOMBAY DYING ROAD, YASWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE,KARNATAKA. 3. K.ARUNA JYOTHI ( DIED) AS PER L.RS P7 AND P8, D/O. LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH , AGE- 75 YEAR OCC- RETIRED TEACHER R/O. D.NO. 1-49/13, SVP COLONY, TANAPALLI ROAD, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K.LAKSHMI KUMARI, D/O LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE- 58 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFER R/O. D.NO.1-46, ALATHUR VILLAGE, ANNUR POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AP. 5. K.SHYAMALA, D/O. LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGE- 53 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 1-49/8A, SVP COLONY, TANAPALLI ROAD, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. A.INDIRA, D/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE- 51 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.3-11, NALLAMANI KALUVA VILLAGE, TANAPALLI, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 2 7. V.V.N.MURALI KRISHNA, S/O LATE K.ARUNA JYOTHI, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O 1-49/13, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 8. V. SRI DIVYA D/O LATE K.ARUNA JYOTHI, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O 1-49/13, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. PETITIONER NOS. 7 AND 8 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS L.RS OF THE DECEASED 3RD PETITIONER AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.31.01.2026 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY FOR REVENUE. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE SUB COLLECTORCUMLAO, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOR, CHITTOR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI, CHITTOR DISTRICT. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD. 6. SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, DIVISION OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH, GUNTAKAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AP ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in awarding compensation to the petitioners lands on reduced market value of their acquired land admeasuring 1016.4 Sq.yards in Sy. No. 203/2, situated at Rayala cheruvu Road, Gopalraju colony, Tirupathi in Ward No.19 Block No.7 after issue of Preliminary Notification No.62/2015 dated 20.07.2015 in the official 3 GAZZETTE despite petitioners objections for determined market value and inserted in printed forms without the Petitioners knowledge as including all benefits in the enquiry statement by the respondents is illegal, misleading, malafide and colourable exercise of powers and consequently direct the respondents to pay 100 Persent solatium on the paid compensation under Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with interest from the date of acquisition of the land and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondent to award the compensation with 100 Percent solatium on the market price of Rupees 30,000/- as per provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was prevailing on the date of issuance of preliminary notification No. 62/2015 Form-VI (A) dated 20-07-2015 in the official Gazette with interest from the date of acquisition of the land, pending disposal of the above 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 pleased to pass an order or orders granting leave and to implead the Petitioners No.7 and 8 are the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No.3 in WP No. 21111 of 2018 per the family member certificate dated 07.10.2022 issued by the Tahasildar, Tirupathi Rural Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T L KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. Y KAMALA RANI 4 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in awarding compensation to the petitioners lands on reduced market value of their acquired land admeasuring 1016.4 sq.yards in Sy.No.203/2, situated at Rayalacheruvu Road, Gopalraj Colony, Tirupathi in Ward No.19 Block No.7 after issue of preliminary Notificaton No.62/2015 dated 20.07.2015 in the official Gazettee despite petitonrs objections for determined market value and inserted n printed forms without the petitioners knowledge as including all benefits in the enquiry statement buy the respondents is illegal, misleading, malafide and clourable exercise of powers and consequently direct the respondents to pay 100% solatium on the paid compensation under Section 30 of the Right of Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with interest from the date of acquisition of the land and pass….” 2. The issue raised in the present Writ Petition is no more res integra, as the same has already been considered and decided in W.P.No.36069 of 2017 & Batch. The said writ petition pertained to the acquisition of lands covered by the same notification, wherein the respondents raised a similar contention that the petitioners had given their consent and signed the relevant consent forms. However, the case of the petitioners therein was that their signatures had been obtained under the false pretext that compensation would be paid at the market value of Rs.30,000/- per square yard. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels the Hon’ble Court passed the following order: “In this backdrop, this Court would have to consider the contentions of the petitioners that they had signed the consent forms with the 5 understand that they were consenting to payment of compensation by taking the market value of Rs.30,000/- per square yard and the consent was not for accepting a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/- per square yard. Another aspect which would have a bearing on this issue has to be noticed. The same land was sought to be acquired under a preliminary notification No.73 of 2013, dated 04.11.2013. The petitioner, in W.P.no.34043 of 2017, had filed W.P.No.35639 of 2013 challenging the said preliminary notification. Thereafter, the present notification was issued on 20.07.2015. It is the averment of the petitioner, that upon publication of this notification, the petitioner in W.P.No.34043 of 2017 had filed objections, on 14.09.2015, raising the issue of reduction of value under the Basic Value Register and that such reduction had been made only to defeat the legitimate right of the petitioners to receive fair compensation. This contention has not been denied by the respondents. In such circumstances, it would be highly doubtful that a person who has been constantly litigating, to protect his property, would accept a reduced rate, especially after he had raised the very same issue before the authorities, by way of his objections. In such circumstances, this Court believes that the consent given by the petitioners in W.P.No.34043 of 2017 as well as the consent given by the petitioner in W.P.no.36069 of 2017 cannot be treated as informed consents accepting the total compensation of Rs.30,000/- per square yard. Another aspect to the matter is the fact that the allegation of the petitioners that he had not received a copy of the award has not been disputed by the 4th respondent, in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. In the absence of such an award, it would also not be possible for the petitioners to seek enhancement of compensation. For all the aforesaid reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the award passed by the 4th respondent on 01.12.2015, to the extent of the lands of the petitioners herein, with a further direction to the respondent to complete the process of passing a fresh award, in relation to the land of the petitioners, in accordance with law, 6 and without reference to the consent forms said to have been signed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. As the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in W.P.No.36069 of 2017 and batch and also pertaining to the same notification, this Court feels it appropriate to pass a similar order. However, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to fix a time frame for implementation of the award, as no such time limit was stipulated in the order dated 08.04.2026. 4. Considering the said submission, and as the subject land covered by the present survey number forms part of the very same notification that was under challenge in the aforesaid writ petition and the issues arising for consideration are identical, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.36069 of 2017 & batch. The respondents are directed to implement the said order and pass the consequential award within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:05.08.2026 RJS 7 24 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21111/2018 05.08.2026 RJS 8