Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vakacherla Narayana Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 July, 2025
1
APHC010226872020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3505]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 14961/2020
Between:
1.VAKACHERLA NARAYANA RAO,, S/O SUBBA
RAYADU, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
2.VAKACHERLA NARASIMHULU,, S/O SUBBA
RAYADU, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
3.VAKACHERLA SUBBA RAO,, S/O NARASIMHULU,
AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O
RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
4.VAKACHERLA SATYANARAYANA RAO,, S/O V.
NARASIMHULU, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC.
AGRICULTURE, R/O RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE,
RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT.
5.VAKACHERLA LAXMI,, W/O LATE KRISHNA RAO,
AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O
RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR
2
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
6.V. MALLIKARJUNA,, S/O LATE NARASIMHULU,
AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O
RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
7.V. NARASIMHULU,, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGED 41
YEARS, 0CC. AGRICULTURE, R/O RAILWAY
KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR HANDAL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
8.V. NARASIMHULU,, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGED
52 YEARS, 0CC. AGRICULTURE, RIO RAILWAY
KODUR VILLAGE, RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL,
YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
9.V. NAGARAJU GUPTA,, S/O LATE VAKACHERLA
SUBBA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, 0CC.
AGRICULTURE, R/O RAILWAY KODUR VILLAGE,
RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT, KADAPA.
3.REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAJAMPET, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT.
4.THE TAHSILDAR, KODUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
3
...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 topleased to pass
order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring
Petitioners land in an extent of Ac.11.75 cents comprising in
Sy.No. 953/1, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 an
extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac.0.95
cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No.
955/1-A an extent of Ac.2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B an
extent of Ac.0.08 cents towards to provide House sites to
the weaker sections of the society and also an extent of Ac.
9.43 cents covering Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents,
Sy.No.953/1 an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 an
extent of Ac. 0.95 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac.
0.08 cents situated at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR
Kadapa District towards Market Yard and not paying
compensation till today as bad, illegal, arbitrary and highly
unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1984 and also contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violation of
Art. 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation
for the acquired lands belonging to the Petitioners with
interest prevailing in the market from the date of acquisition
till today 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 pleased to direct
the respondents to pay compensation with interest at the
4
prevailing market value for acquired lands of the Petitioners
for providing House sites and Market Yard total extent of Ac.
11.75 cents comprising in Sy.No. 953/1, an extent of
Ac.2.10 cents, Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents,
Sy.No. 954/1, an extent of Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an
extent of Ac.1.21 cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac.
2.15 cents, Sy.No. 954/1-B an extent of Ac.0.08 cents
towards to provide House sites to the weaker sections of
the society and also an extent of Ac. 9.43 cents covering
Sy.No. 952 an extent of Ac. 3.14 cents, Sy.No.953/1 an
extent of Ac. 2.10 cents, Sy.No. 954/1 an extent of Ac. 0.95
cents, Sy.No. 955/1-A an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents situated
at Kodur Village, Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.K VENUGOPAL REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following:
5
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.14961 OF 2020
ORDER:
1. It is the case of the petitioners that originally
the lands in Sy.No.953/1 in an extent of Ac.2.10, Sy.No.952
an extent of Ac.3.14 cents, Sy.No.954/1, an extent of
Ac.0.95 cents, Sy.No.954/2 an extent of Ac.1.21 cents,
Sy.No.955/1-A an extent of Ac.2.15 cents, Sy.No.954/1-B
an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, totally admeasuring to an extent
of Ac.11.75 cents and an extent of Ac.3.14 cents in
Sy.No.952, an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.No.953/1, an
extent of Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.954/1, an extent of Ac.1.01
cents in Sy.No.955/1-A, an extent of Ac.2.15 cents in
Sy.No.955/1-A and an extent of Ac.0.08 cents in
Sy.No.955/1-C totally admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.43
cents in Kodur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa, belonged
to their ancestors.
2. It is further case of the petitioners that the
possession of the above lands were taken by invoking
6
urgency clause under Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for providing house sites to the weaker sections and
also for setting up market yard. It is further case of the
petitioners that thereafter, award was passed on
28.03.1984 vide award Nos.4, 5, 6, 7/83-84.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri
Vakacherla Subbarayudu and two others filed writ petition
vide W.P.No.8711 of 1984 questioning the acquisition of the
subject lands invoking urgency clause. Initially the
respondents therein were directed to maintain status-quo
obtaining as on 30.05.1984 by order dated 22.06.1984. It is
their further case that despite the interim order, the
respondents therein have taken possession of the lands
and questioning the same, the petitioners herein filed a
Contempt Case in C.C.No.118 of 1984 and upon hearing
the parties, the said contempt case was closed on
26.10.1984 stating that award was already passed on
28.03.1984. Subsequently, the writ petition vide
W.P.No.8711 of 1984 was also closed by order dated
22.01.1986.
7
4. It is further case of the petitioners that,
thereafter they have approached the 3rd respondent to pay
compensation for the subject lands and in turn they were
informed that the files pertaining to the subject lands were
burnt in Arson and they are taking steps to reconstruct the
same. Thereafter, one Sri Vakacherla Krishna Rao, S/o.
Vakacherla Subbarayudu filed writ petition vide
W.P.No.16901 of 2007 before this Court seeking to pay
compensation towards his share as against the subject
lands.
5. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner
therein Sri Vakacherla Krishna Rao died on 14.01.2014 as
such the said writ petition was closed by order dated
09.07.2018.
6. It is further case of the petitioners that in the
said writ petition the Tahsildar through letter dated
14.10.2008 furnished written instructions to the Government
Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
stating that the subject lands were acquired and award
Nos.4 to 9, dated 28.03.1984 were passed. It is further
8
stated that the petitioner has not taken compensation from
the Land Acquisition Officer. A copy of letter dated
14.10.2008 is filed along with the present writ petition to
show that the petitioners were not paid compensation.
7. It is further stated that they approached the
respondents for payment of compensation and they also
issued legal notice dated 02.03.2020 to the respondents
and despite receiving the said notice, no steps were taken
to pay compensation to the petitioners and questioning the
said action the present writ petition is filed.
8. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent filed
counter affidavit admitting that the subject lands were
acquired and awards were passed on 28.03.1984 vide
Award Nos.4 to 7/83-84. It is also admitted in the counter
affidavit that the said land was acquired for providing house
sites to schedule casts and schedule tribes and at present
the subject lands are covered with residential houses
popularly called as Samatha Nagar. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that the compensation is paid to the
petitioners as per awards dated 28.03.1984. It is further
9
stated that the copies of Award No.4 to 7/83-84 and files
pertaining to the subject lands have been burnt in the public
agitation that took place on 17.08.1984.
9. The 3rd respondent also filed additional counter
affidavit admitting the averments made in support of the writ
affidavit and requested this Court to pass appropriate
orders in the matter.
10. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
11. Perused material available on record.
12. It is not in dispute that the subject lands were
acquired for providing house site pattas to weaker sections
and to set up market yard in Kodur Village and Mandal,
YSR Kadapa District. It is also not in dispute that the
possession of the subject lands were taken by invoking
urgency clause under Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894. Though, the original land owners filed writ petition
questioning the action of the respondents in invoking the
urgency clause, the said writ petition vide W.P.No.8711 of
10
1984 was closed by order dated 22.01.1986 as awards
were already passed.
13. It is pertinent to note that one of the land losers
filed writ petition No.16901 of 2007 seeking to pay
compensation towards his share, in which the 4th
respondent furnished instructions through letter dated
14.10.2008, whereunder it was categorically admitted that
lands admeasuring to an extent Ac.11.75 cents and an
extent of Ac.9.43 cents of Koduru Village were acquired and
the petitioners therein did not receive the compensation.
14. Though, initially a counter affidavit is filed by
the respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that compensation was
paid to the petitioners, subsequently additional counter
affidavit was filed on 13.09.2003 requesting this Court to
pass appropriate orders in the matter.
15. It is pertinent to note that, nothing is placed on
record to show that compensation is paid to the petitioners
or to their ancestors in respect of the subject lands and the
same is also evident on perusal of letter dated 13.09.2008
addressed by the 4th respondent.
11
16. In view of the same, it is clear that having
acquired the lands belonging to the petitioner, the
respondents for the reasons best known to them did not pay
compensation. On perusal of the counter affidavit it is
presumed that the compensation could not paid to the
petitioners in view of the fact that the records pertaining to
the subject lands were burnt during the agitation that took
place on 17.08.1984. Further, the respondents have not
taken any steps to see that the compensation is paid to the
original owners or to the petitioners.
17. Though, it is argued by the counsel for the
petitioner that compensation has to be paid in accordance
with the provisions of Act, 30 of 2013, the request of the
counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in view of
Section 24 of the Act, 30 of 2013 which reads as under:
“24. Land Acquisition process under Act No.1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapses in certain cases
–
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-
(a) Where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply; or
12
(b) Where an award under said section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act,
as if the said Act has not been repealded.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of
1894), where an award under the said section 11 has
been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the
appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall
initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said
Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.”
18. On a reading of Section 24(1)(b), it is clear that
if an award is passed under Section 11 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, all the such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Act as if, the said act has not been
repealed. In the instant case, admittedly Award was passed
on 28.03.1984 therefore the Award passed under the said
Act shall remain to continue.
19. Further, the benefit conferred under Sub
Section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 30 of 2013 cannot be given
13
to the petitioners in view of the Judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others“1, it is held as under:
“In re Question I: Section 24(2) – Lapse of
acquisition-Twin requirements are cumulative and
conjunctive in nature – For the 1894 Act acquisition
proceedings to lapse, possession should not have been
taken and compensation should not have been paid
within the specified period of five years.
Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period
covered by an interim order of the court, then
proceedings shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has
not been repealed.
The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor”
or as “and”. The deemed lapse of and acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for five years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation
has been paid, possession has not been taken then
there is no lapse.
Section 24 begins with a non obstante clause,
overriding all other provisions of the 2013 Act including
Section 114 of the 2013 Act, dealing with repeal and
saving. In terms of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, the
general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, except otherwise provided in the Act, has
been saved.
1
(2020) 8 SCC 129
14
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act read with the non
obstante clause provides that in case of proceedings
initiated under the 1894 Act the award had not been
made under Section 11, then the provisions of the 2013
Act, relating to the determination of compensation
would apply. However, the proceedings held earlier do
not lapse. In terms of Section 24(1)(b), where award
under Section 11 is made, then such proceedings shall
continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act. It
contemplates that such pending proceedings, as in the
date on which the 2013 Act came into force shall
continue, and taken to their logical end. However, the
exception to Section 24(1)(b) is provided in Section 24 (2)
in case of pending proceedings: in case where the
award has been passed five years or more prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act, the physical
possession of the land has not been taken, or the
compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed, and such proceedings
cannot continue as per the provisions of Section 24(1)(b)
of the 2013 Act.
Section 24(2) carves out an exception to Section
24(1)(b), where the award has been passed, and the
proceedings are pending, but in such proceedings,
physical possession of the land has not been taken, or
compensation has not been paid, proceedings shall
lapse. There are twin requirements for the lapse: firstly,
physical possession has not been taken and, secondly,
compensation has not been paid.
Positive conditions separated by “or” are read in
the alternative but negative conditions connected by
“or” are construed as cumulative and “or” is read as
“not” or “and”. If there are two negative conditions, the
expression “or” has to be read as conjunctive and
conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled.
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v.Narayanrao Khanderao
Jambekar, (1965) 2 SCR 328: AIR 1965 SC 1457; Punjab
Produce & Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 2 SCC 540,
affirmed Brown RF & Co. Ltd. v. Harrison, 1927 All ER
Rep 195 (CA), approved.
As regards the collation of the words used in
Section 24(2), two negative conditions have been
prescribed. Thus, even if one condition is satisfied,
there is no lapse, and this logically flows from the 1894
Act read with the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013
Act. Any other interpretation would entail illogical
15
results. That apart, if the rule of interpretation with
respect to two negative conditions qualified by “or” is
used, then “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”.
Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings
initiated under the old law, under Section 24(2) it is only
if both steps have not been taken i.e. neither physical
possession is taken, nor compensation is paid, the land
acquisition proceedings lapse.”
20. In view of the said Judgment, the petitioners are
entitled to receive compensation in terms of award dated
28.03.1984 together with interest as provided for under
Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
21. Accordingly, the present writ petition is partly-
allowed and the respondents are directed to pay
compensation in terms of Award Nos.4 to 7/83-84, dated
28.03.1984 together with interest as per Section 34 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. It is needless to mention that the
compensation together with interest shall be paid to the
petitioners within a period of two (02) months from the date of
receipt of copy of the order.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
16
As sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any
shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
24.07.2025
DR
17
394
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.14961 of 2020
Date 24.07.2025
DR