Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
T. Gopanna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos.6790, 6792 & 7021 of 2024
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for the Respondents.
2. As all these three Writ Petitions have raised common issues, the three
Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common
Order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts emerging from W.P.No.6790 of
2024 are referred to in this Common Order.
4. The relief sought in this Writ Petition (W.P.No.6790 of 2024) is as under:
“In view of the facts and circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any
appropriate Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents herein in not paying compensation to the
petitioners as per the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and issuing
proceedings in ROC.G2/2095 /2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued
by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently set-aside the proceedings in
ROC.G2/2095/2016 dated 24.06.2016 issued by the 2nd
respondent and pay compensation by following the procedure
contemplated under the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by following the
order dated 24.09.2021 in W.P. No. 16739 of 2020 and to
pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2
5. It is the contention of Sri Vinod K Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ
Petitioners that the facts in these three Writ Petitions are identical to the facts
in W.P.No.22879 and 22861 of 2018, wherein, Ld. Single Judge of this
Hon’ble Court, vide Order dated 27.12.2018 was pleased to allow the same.
The Official Respondents have filed Writ Appeal No.754 of 2023 against the
Order dated 27.12.2018 in W.P.No.22879 of 2018; that vide Order dated
01.03.2024 the Writ Appeal No.754 of 2023 was dismissed. Ld. Counsel for
the Writ Petitioners would further submit that the Official Respondents have
filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S). 52870 of 2024. Although, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had initially granted stay of operation of the Ld.
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22879 of 2018, later, vide Order dated
24.01.2025 was pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P.
6. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the
Writ Petitioners herein are the DKT Patta Holders in Chinnapandur village,
Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupathi District; that the lands which belong to the
Writ Petitioners were taken in the year 2016 for the purpose of establishing
‘Industrial Park’; that on 24.06.2016, the District Collector, Chittor has issued
Proceedings No.G2/2095/2016 fixing ex gratia of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre
without following the procedure contemplated under Act 30 of 2013; that
though the Writ Petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation as per the
Act 30 of 2013, the District Collector has chosen to pay an ex gratia amount of
Rs.6,50,000/- for each D.K.T. Patta holder; that some of the persons who lost
the land in the acquisition process had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing
W.P.No.22879 of 2018; that vide Order dated 27.12.2018, the Writ Petition
came to be allowed, by fixing compensation @ Rs.17,28,066/- per acre to the
Writ Petitioners (to all D.K.T. Patta Holders) for resuming their lands in the
year 2016 including interest as per Section 80 of the Act 30 of 2013.
Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 27.12.2018 in
W.P.No.22879 of 2018, the State had preferred Writ Appeal No.754 of 2023;
that the Writ Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of
3
this Court vide Order dated 01.03.2024; this Order dated 01.03.2024 in
W.A.No.754 of 2023 came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S). 52870 of 2024; that
vide Order dated 24.01.2025, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No (S).
52870 of 2024 came to be dismissed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court
to paragraph Nos. 13 to 19 in Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh;
(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 569.
“13. In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate
person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been
deprived of her private property by the State without
resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant
has been divested of her right to property without being paid
any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The
cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since
the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property
in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of
law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is
so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was
taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any
procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution,
and direct the State to pay compensation to the appellant.
14. The State has submitted that in 2008 it had initiated
acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining
landowner viz. Shri Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction
given by the High Court in Anakh Singh v. State of
H.P. [Anakh Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP
220] The State initiated acquisition only in the case where
directions were issued by the High Court, and not in the case
of other landowners whose lands were compulsorily taken
over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a
consequence, the present landowner has been driven to
move the Court in their individual cases for redressal.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case, the respondent State is directed to pay the
compensation on the same terms as awarded by the
Reference Court vide order dated 7-7-2015 in Anakh
Singhcase [Anakh Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine
HP 220] (i.e. Land Reference No. 1 of 2011 RBT No. 01/13)
along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest,
etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of
deemed acquisition. An affidavit of compliance is directed to
be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks.
4
16. It is informed that an appeal has been preferred by
Ravinder Singh s/o Anakh Singh & Ors. being RFA No. 35 of
2016 which is pending before the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla.
17. Taking note thereof, if an appeal is filed by the present
appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation
being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to
be within limitation, and would be decided on its own merits
in accordance with law.
18. The respondent State is directed to pay legal costs and
expenses of Rs 1,00,000 to the present appellant.
19. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders dated
11-9-2013 [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., 2013 SCC OnLine
HP 5384] and 13-5-2014 [Vidya Devi v. State of H.P., 2014
SCC OnLine HP 5941] passed by the High Court are set
aside. Ordered accordingly.”
8. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt
Ratra and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others; (2022) 7
Supreme Court Cases 508, where the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para Nos.17
and 18 as under:
17. When seen holistically, it is apparent that the State’s actions,
or lack thereof, have in fact compounded the injustice meted
out to the appellants and compelled them to approach this
Court, albeit belatedly. The initiation of acquisition proceedings
initially in the 1990s occurred only at the behest of the High
Court. Even after such judicial intervention, the State continued
to only extend the benefit of the Court’s directions to those who
specifically approached the courts. The State’s lackadaisical
conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition
proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those
writ petitioners who had approached the court in earlier
proceedings, and not other landowners, pursuant to the orders
dated 23-4-2007 (in Anakh Singh v. State of H.P. [Anakh
Singh v. State of H.P., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 220] ) and 20-12-
2013 (in Onkar Singh v. State [Onkar Singh v. State, CWP No.
1356 of 2010, order dated 20-12-2013 (HP)] ), respectively. In
this manner, at every stage, the State sought to shirk its
responsibility of acquiring land required for public use in the
manner prescribed by law.
18. There is a welter of precedents on delay and laches which
conclude either way–as contended by both sides in the
present dispute–however, the specific factual matrix compels
5
this Court to weigh in favour of the appellant landowners. The
State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches
in such a situation; there cannot be a “limitation” to doing justice.
This Court in a much earlier case — Maharashtra
SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [Maharashtra
SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808 :
AIR 1969 SC 329] , held : (AIR pp. 335-36, para 11)
“11. … ‘Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of
Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine.
Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy,
either because the party has, by his conduct, done
that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet
put the other party in a situation in which it would not
be reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases,
lapse of time and delay are most material.
But in every case, if an argument against relief,
which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere
delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by
any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence
must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
Two circumstances, always important in such cases,
are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval, which might affect either
party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in
taking the one course or the other, so far as relates
to the remedy’.”
9. In the light of the above facts in respect of the same subject property, all
the earlier cases have attained finality in favour of the Writ Petitioners and
thereby giving a direction to the Official Respondents to decide the
compensation in accordance with law.
10. Sri Vinod K Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, while placing
reliance on the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella
Division, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekala Pandu and others; 2004 SCC
OnLine AP 217, submits that the principle that the assignees are also entitled
to the same kind of compensation in land Acquisition proceeding as that of the
holders of ryotwari patta and patta land had attained finality and that it is no
6
longer a res integra. In view of this settled principle of law, this Court does not
find any reason to deviate from the position mentioned above.
11. In this view of the matter, these Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos. 6790, 6792 &
7021 of 2024) stand allowed. The Respondents are directed to pay
compensation by treating the Writ Petitioners as free holders of land, thereby
entitling them to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). This Court
has noticed that the claimants who have approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.22879 of 2018 etc., have been declared as being entitled for the
compensation as per the market value as per the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). Keeping this in mind, there
shall be a further direction to the Official Respondents to pay the
compensation within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of uploading
of this Order in the website of this Court.
12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 19.06.2025
MNR
7
02
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos.6790, 6792 and 7021 of 2024
Dt: 19.06.2025
MNR