Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B Rama Lakshmamma vs The State Of Ap on 16 June, 2025
1
APHC010409612023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 20982/2023
Between:
1. B RAMA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED 68
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-151/A, KANAMPAILI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE
MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAND
ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
5. APIIC ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
CORPORATION, APIIC TOWERS, PLOT NO 1 , IT PARK,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, AP -522503. R5 IS SUO MOTO
IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.18.07.2024.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
2
1. V V N NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
3. J UGRANARASIMHA (SC FOR APIIC)
The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner
and Ms.M.Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“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 any writ or
direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in
passing resumption order in Rc.No. B/387/2019 dated
24.04.2021 in respect of lands admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89
cents in Sy.No. 167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne
Mandal, Ananthapur District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India, contrary to Act
30 of 2013 and also contrary to the order dated 24.09.2021 in
W.P.No. 16739 of 2020 and consequently direct the
Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to in respect
of lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in
Sy.No.167/5B and to an extent of Ac. 4.89 cents in Sy.No.
167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur
District in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-
settlement Act, 2013 and to pass such other order or orders as
the Hon’ble Court may think deem fit and proper.”
3. Vide Interim Order dated 17.08.2023, the learned Single Judge (my
Predecessor) had directed to maintain Status-Quo in respect of the subject
matter for six (06) weeks. Thereafter, the Interim Order came to be extended
from time to time.
3
4. The facts, as projected by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner,
are that one Sri Billa Narayana Swamy was assigned land in Sy.No.167/4 of
an extent of Ac.5.03 cents. It is submitted that after the death of Sri Billa
Narayana Swamy, his widowed wife (Writ Petitioner herein) made an
Application to the Respondent No.4 seeking transfer of DKT patta. This was
accepted by the Respondent No.4. The 4th Respondent has sub-divided the
extent of Ac.5.03 cents in Sy.No.167/4 into new Sy.No.167/5B to an extent of
Ac.0.85 cents and Sy.No.167/4B to an extent of Ac.4.89 cents and mutation
was also done in the Revenue Records in favour of the Writ Petitioner.
Form-1B was also issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner.
5. On account of the requisition made by the newly impleaded Respondent
No.5 (Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation), an extent of
Ac.142.96 cents were sought to be acquired, out of which, the land belonging
to several DKT patta holders was also included. The land belonging to Sri Billa
Narayana Swamy also got included for acquisition. It is the further case of the
Writ Petitioner that when the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose
of Industrial Park at the behest of the Respondent No.5, the Revenue
Authorities, in order to avoid payment of compensation, had issued the
impugned proceedings dated 24.04.2021 bearing Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1)
stating that the Writ Petitioner had violated the conditions of DKT patta and
someone else is in occupation. It is submitted that the impugned Order itself
would indicate that the name of the Pattadar is the Writ Petitioner herein and
the column relating to the enjoyment and the occupier is kept blank. The
impugned Order would also refer to the proposal for acquisition for the
purpose of Industrial Park. It is also contended that the Official Respondents
herein have passed the Orders of Resumption (impugned Order).
6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the additional documents filed by the Writ Petitioner. One such
document is the Proceedings of the Respondent No.5 bearing
4
Lr.No.ZO/APIIC/ATP/LA/IBEA/Kanumpalli/2019/497 dated 14.09.2022 to the
following effect:
“In this connection as per IOM of the APIIC Limited OSD
Lands, Mangalagiri, land measuring 142.96 Acres in Kanumpalli
Village of Garladinne Mandal of Anantapuramu District here by
may be withdrawn.”
7. Having noted this fact, vide Order dated 18.07.2024, this Court has suo
moto impleaded APIIC as Respondent No.5. Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for APIIC, on instructions, had confirmed to the
effect that the APIIC has communicated to the Government that the proposed
land has been handed over to the Government as not being required.
8. The Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has filed Counter-Affidavit on
12.10.2023. One of the documents filed by the Tahsildar is the document
which shows that the Writ Petitioner has given a Statement on 18.03.2021
thereby consenting to the proposed acquisition for Industrial Park by affixing
her ‘Thumb Impression’.
9. This Court would observe that the impugned Order, resuming the land,
passed on 24.04.2021, would have been a futile exercise if the Writ Petitioner
had willingly consented for resumption and for handing over to the Industrial
Park on 18.03.2021. Therefore, the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the
‘Thumb Impression’ was forcibly obtained from the Writ Petitioner for
consenting for resumption appears to have some truth in it.
10. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the
resumption proceedings are illegal in as much as the Petitioner has never
received the notice. It is also contended that the resumption proceedings
(impugned proceedings) are also illegal in as much as the Respondents have
failed to indicate the alleged violation made by the Writ Petitioner because the
impugned proceedings does not indicate as to who is the present occupier of
the subject land. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that
ever since the land has been mutated in the name of the Writ Petitioner, she
5
has been in continuous possession and enjoyment and has not been
alienated to anyone and therefore, Resumption Proceedings are bad in law.
Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.16739 of 2020
dated 24.09.2021 and would submit that the land can be dispossessed by the
Official Respondents only by the authority of law and that the Authorities are
obligated to follow the procedure prescribed under the statute.
11. Admitted facts of the case are that the husband of the Writ Petitioner is
a holder of DKT patta. After his demise, the land has been mutated in the
name of the Writ Petitioner, after reallocation of new survey numbers as
indicated supra. The Respondent-Officials have obtained the Thumb
Impression of the Writ Petitioner on a printed format on 18.03.2021 indicating
that the Writ Petitioner has consented for accepting the compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) per acre. Thereafter, the
impugned Proceedings came to be issued on 24.04.2021 bearing
Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1). Admittedly, the impugned Proceeding was issued
for resuming the land on the alleged ground that the Writ Petitioner has
violated the conditions made for DKT patta holders and that someone else is
in occupation of the land. Admittedly, the name of the occupier is not indicated
in the impugned Order. Admittedly, the Respondent No.5 has issued the
Proceedings to the District Collector, Anantapuramu vide
Lr.No.ZO/APIIC/ATP/LA/IBEA/Kanumpalli/2019/497 dated 14.09.2022,
requesting the District Collector to withdraw the acquisition proceedings to an
extent of Ac.142.96 cents.
12. The above admitted facts would indicate that the consent obtained from
the Writ Petitioner on 18.03.2021 is not a valid consent, especially in the light
of the fact that subsequently, the Respondent No.4 (The Tahsildar) issued
Proceedings on 24.04.2021 seeking to resume the land. It is also noticed that
the Official Respondent No.5 does not require the said land anymore and the
same has been handed over to the Government.
6
13. In the given facts, this Court would hold that the impugned proceedings
dated 24.04.2021 bearing Rc.No.B/387/2019 (Ex.P.1) are illegal and
unsustainable for reasons stated hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned
Proceedings are quashed as being illegal and arbitrary. Apart from this, this
Court would also hold that there is no valid consent with regard to the
statement of the Writ Petitioner dated 18.03.2021 accepting for compensation
@ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Since the Respondent No.5 has handed over the
extent of Ac.142.96 cents to the Government, this Court is of the opinion that
the said land (Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.167/5B and Ac.4.89 cents in
Sy.No.167/4B of Kanampalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District.)
which is released by the Respondent No. 5 shall be handed over to the Writ
Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner shall enjoy the said land on the same terms and
conditions as any other DKT patta holder.
14. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 16.06.2025
UPS
7
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.20982 OF 2023
Dt: 16.06.2025
UPS