Smt. Depuru Vijaya Lakshmi, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 June, 2025

0
22

[ad_1]

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Smt. Depuru Vijaya Lakshmi, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 June, 2025

APHC010227522025
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                 [3329]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                 PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 12819/2025

Between:

Smt. Depuru Vijaya Lakshmi, and Others                  ...PETITIONER(S)

                                    AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

  1. C SUBODH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. GP FOR REVENUE

  2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

The Court made the following:
                                        2


   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA


                     WRIT PETITION NO: 12819/2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the respondents in not paying compensation to the
petitioners with respect to lands i.e., land of an extent
Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.232 and 234 belongs to the 1st
petitioner and an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.233-2H2
and 234-2, situated at Gudali village, Kota Mandal, Tirupati
District belongs to the 2nd petitioner which are affected in
“Improvements to left side flood bank of Tsallakalava River”.

Pursuant to preliminary notification in Rc.G2 1205/2021
dated 07.08.2021 and proceeding further for acquisition of
the lands even though possession of the lands were taken
in the year 2015 as illegal, arbitrary, against principles of
Natural Justice, violation of provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
and Rules, 2014
and violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents to pay the
compensation to the petitioners forthwith and pass such
other order.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st

petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land

admeasuring to an extent of Ac.10.77 cents in Sy.Nos.232 & 233

situated at Gudali Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District,

having acquired the same through a registered sale deed dated
3

27.06.2011. The 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor

of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.38 cents in Sy.Nos.233

and 234 situated at Gudali Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District having acquired the same through a registered sale deed

dated 10.02.2011. The part of the subject lands i.e. an extent of

Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.232 & 234 and Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.233-

2H2 & 234-2 were acquired by the Government pursuant to the

preliminary land acquisition notification in the year 2015. Even after

issuance of the preliminary notification, the respondents not

complied with the other compliances i.e, publication of declaration

under Section 19 and passing of an award under Section 20 of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Now, without complying

the mandatory legal procedure, the respondents are proceeding with

the fresh notification instead of continuing with previous notification

and other proceedings i.e., publication of declaration under Section

19 and passing an award under Section 10 of the Act, 2013, which is

contrary to the scheme of the Act and with an intention to drag the

matter without paying the compensation to the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the

respondents furnished written instructions issued by the 5th

respondent dated 15.06.2025, wherein it is stated as follows:
4

“The requisition department i.e., The Executive
Engineer, Water Resource Department has been
requested from this office vide Rc.A2.676/2019 dated
21.04.2025 requesting to file fresh requisition so that the
compensation can be processed to the writ petitioners
along with all the land losers and the water resource
department is processing the request for filing of fresh
requisition.

In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that all
necessary steps have been initiated in accordance with
the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013
. The delay in finalization of the
award was due to non-availability of funds and
subsequent lapse of the draft declaration. Furthermore,
with the reorganization of districts, the subject lands
now fall under the jurisdiction of the newly formed
Tirupati District, requiring a fresh requisition from the
concerned department. ”

5. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits

that even though the preliminary notification was published in the

year 2018, but other required steps as contemplated under Section

19 and 20 of the Act, 2013 were not complied with as per the terms

of the Act. Therefore, having no other option, the respondents

resolved the entire issue by inviting requisition afresh. The same

was confirmed by the respondent authority vide a letter dated

21.04.2025.

5

6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

there is no limitation for publication of declaration. Therefore, the

respondents can carry out the publication from the proceedings

where it was stopped and can proceed further to pass an award.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for

the respondents and on perusal of the written instructions issued by

the 5th respondent, it appears that the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific limitation after

issuance of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land and for

publication of the declaration under Section 19 of the Act, therefore

the respondent are liable to proceed further by carrying out the

compliance as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act and

publish the declaration and proceed further to pass an award. But,

Section 19(7) of the Act clearly indicates hereunder:

“19. Publication of declaration and summary of

Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(7) Where no declaration is made under sub-

section (1) within twelve months from the date of
preliminary notification, then such notification
shall be deemed to have been rescinded:

Provided that in computing the period referred to
in this sub-section, any period or periods during
which the proceedings for the acquisition of the
6

land were held up on account of any stay or
injunction by the order of any Court shall be
excluded:

Provided further that the appropriate Government
shall have the power to extend the period of
twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances
exist justifying the same:

Provided also that any such decision to extend
the period shall be recorded in writing and the
same shall be notified and be uploaded on the
website of the authority concerned.”

8. On perusal of the above provision of law, it is observed that

the respondents shall publish the declaration within a period of

twelve months from the date of preliminary notification. Therefore,

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is

no limitation for publication of declaration is lacks merits and

contrary to law. Hence, as contended in the written instructions of

the respondents and in view of the non-compliance of statutory

compliance under Section 19, the respondents are at liberty to

proceed further afresh expeditiously and complete the acquisition

process within a reasonable time i.e., more particularly not later

than Twelve(12) months from the date of receipt of copy of this

Order or from the date of preliminary notification whichever is less.

9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

7

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
23.06.2025
TPS
8

156

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO:12819 of 2025

23.06.2025
TPSs

[ad_2]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here