\ • •
'•TTf/# .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI > r*
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR T ft
^\o
C
^>1
PRESENT
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 186 OF 2024
‘-otters Patent Appeal preferred against
on the ifle of the High Court. *
the order in WP No. 33712 of 2023 dated 29.01.2024
Between:
1. M. Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.M. Venkkata Subba Reddy,
Aged about 72
years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. D. No. 38/1560-B, Sagar
Colony
Ramanjaneyappuram, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District.
. Mukanri Penchalaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah, Aged about
50 years Occ-
Agriculture, R/o. Rangampalli Village, Atlur mandal,
YSR Kadapa District
3. Mamidi Sesha Reddy, S/o. Sesha Reddy, Aged about
52 years Occ-
Agriculture, R/o^Rangampalli Village, Atlur mandal,
YSR Kadapa District.
. P. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, Aged about 54
years Occ
5 Atlur mandal, YSR Kadapa District
' R/f CnH^n ^ubbaiah. Aged about 45 years, Occ: Driyer
R/a Gollapalli Village, Atlur mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
' Aged about 55 years. Occ; House
wife, R/o^ Rangampalli Village, Atlur mandal. YSR Kadapa
District
Aged about 45 years. Occ; Agriculture R/o
Gollapalli Village, Atlur mandal, YSR Kadapa District
c4; YSR Kadapa arst ' Kadapa
^ ®l°i Aged about 51 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o
Go lapalh Village, Atlur mandal, YSR Kadapa District
lO.Pallem Pitchi Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy, Aged about
60 years Occ
11 ^'"^96, Atlur mandal, YSR Kadapa District
H.Mamid Lakshmi Deyi, W/o. Yella Reddy, Aged about
45 years Occ
Ramanianeyapuram,
12.Arem Narasimha Reddy. S/o. Arem Pitchi Reddy, Aged
about 55 years Occ
13 aSuH ^ ^ vandal, YSR Kadapa D^rict
13.Anduri Ramakrishna Reddy. S/o. Bayanna, Aged about
59 years Occ
griculture, R/o. Rangampalli Village, Atlur mandal,
YSR Kadapa District.
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
AND
1. Mamidi Sreenivasulu Reddy. S/o. M. Venkata Subba
Reddy, Aged about 48
years, Occ; Correspondent, Srinivasa ITI College, R/o.
Flat No. 304 Balaii
Colony, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.
2. M. Ramyasree, W/o. Mamidi Sreenivasulu Reddy, Aged
about 40 years, Occ;
House wife, R/o. Flat No. 304, Balaji Colony, Chinnachowk,
Kadapa YSR
Kadapa District.
3. Mamidi Kalavathi, W/o. Srikanth Reddy, Aged about
40 years. Occ, House
wife, R/o. D. No. 36/210-2, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Chinnachowk,
Kadapa YSR
Kadapa District.
4. Mamidi Narayanamma, W/o. Venkata Subba Reddy. Aged
about 70 years
Oca- House wife, R/o. Flat No. 304, Balaji Colony, Chinnachowk, Kadapa ’
YSR Kadapa District.
5. D. Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Muni Reddy, Aged about
44 years Occ-
Housewife, R/o. D. No. 36/257-2. Chinnachowk, Kadapa, Y.S.R.’District.
6. Mamidi Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. M. Venkata Subba
Reddy, Aged about 39
years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. D. No. 38/1560-B,
Sagar Colony
Ramanjaneyapuram, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.
7. B. Venkata Sudhamma, W/o. Venkata Subba Reddy. Aged
about 38 years
Occ; Employee, R/o. D.No. 38/1560-B, Sagar Colony,
Ramanjaneyapuram
Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.
ft Th c. ♦ f A ...respondents/writ petitioners
b. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Water
oSric/^^^ Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur
9. The Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement,
Andhra Hospitals
-in Go'lapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh ’
10. The District Collector, YSR Kkadapa District, Kadapa.
11. The Special Collector (LA GNSS), YSR Kadapa District,
Office of New
Collectorate, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District
12. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit-ll, Somasila
Project Rajampeta
, YSR
Kadapa District.
13.P. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Konda Reddy, Aged about
54 years. Occ-
Agriculture, R/o. Rangampalli Village, Atlur Mandal,
YSR District Presently
Appeal) Respondent who is Not Necessary party to this
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
th» .ffrn circumstances stated i
in
Th a P®*”"' 'P® ^^9^ Court may be pleased to
A®' P®f®‘’ of 2023, dated 29.01.2024 pending
disposal of Writ Appeal in this Hon’ble Court. ^ ^
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI S. LAKSHMINARAYANA
REDDY
Counse for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : SRI B.ABHAY
SIDDHANTH MOOTHA
Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : GP FOR IRRIGATIN
AND COMMON
AREA
_ , ^ DEVELOPMENT
counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12 : GP FOR LAND
ACQUISITION
The Court made the following: ORDER
7
m THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 186 of 2084
M. Venkata Subba Reddy,
S/o. M. Venkata Subba Reddy,
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. D.NO.38/1560-B, Sagar Colony,
Ramanjaneyappuram, Kadapa City,
YSR Kadapa District and 12 others.
... Appellants
Vs.
Mamidi Sreenivasulu Reddy,
S/o. M. Venkata Subba Reddy,
Aged about 48 years, Occ: Correspondent,
Srinivasa ITI College, R/o. Flat No.304,
Balaji Colony, Chinnachowk, Kadapa,
YSR District and 12 others.
... Respondents
: Mr. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy
Counsel for the Appellant
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha
- R1 to R7
G.P. for Irrigation - R8
G.P. for Land Acquisition - R9 to R12
Dt.: 29.02.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. C J COraP):
This appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has
been preferred against judgment and order dated 29.01.2024
passed in W.P.No.33712of 2023.
/'
2
HCJ&RRR, J
W.A.No.l86of2024
/
2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the learned Single
Judge wherein it was stated that they were successors-in-interes
t
of one, Mamidi Gangi Reddy, in regard to a plot of land admeasuring
forty five cents. It is stated that the District Collector
of Kadapa
District issued a notification dated 09.01.1991 for
acquiring land
for Somasila project and although the land m question
along with
structures was initially included in the notification so issued, at the
time of passing of the Award, the said land was excluded
on the
ground that it was below the reservoir level. The petitioners
claim
that they subsequently built 17 structures in the said land for
residential and non-residential purposes and were in
continuous
possession and enjo3nnent of the same.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently the left over
land which includes the land of the petitioners and
the structures
thereupon was sought to be acquired and a notification
under
Section 11 of the Right to Pair Compensation and Transparency
in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (in
short, ‘the 2013 Act’) was published. It was the case of the
petitioners that the names of the respondent Nos.6 to 19 were
3
HCJ&RRR, J
W.A.No.l86of2024
shown as owmers of the subject property instead of the petitioners.
Objections filed to the notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act
initially were not considered, which led the petitioners to file
W.P.No.26828 of 2021 wherein directions were issued for
rejected by the
consideration of the objections which were finally
Order dated 23.04.2022 which are stiU the subject matter of
challenge in writ petition No. 13133 of 2022.
The case of the petitioners was that even then the petitioners
4.
were ‘persons interested’ in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 2013,
no notice under the said Section was issued by the Special Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition) Unit-II of the Somasila Project and that
an Award came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural
the names of
justice. The apprehension expressed was that since
the petitioners are not included as “persons interested”, they would
of Section 64
not be in a position to pursue their remedies in terms
of the 2013 Act before the Authority.
The learned Single Judge, by virtue of judgment and order
5.
impugned dated 29.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.33712 of 2023,
permitted the petitioners to file an application for reference imder
Section 64 of the Act and further ordered that the same be
4
HCJ&RRR, J
W.A.No.186 of2024
f
considered and disposed of in accordance with law by
providing an
opportunity of being heard to all the concerned parties.
6. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, learned counsel
for the
appellants representing the appellants who were respondent
Nos.6
to 19 in the writ petition urged that the hberty granted
by the
learned Single Judge ought not to have been so granted
inasmuch
as the petitioners had not filed the apphcation within
the limitation
provided under the first proviso to sub-Section 2 of
Section 64 of
the 2013 Act.
7. While the learned counsel for the appellants may be
right to
some extent that the first proviso to sub-Section 2
of Section 64 of
the 2013 Act does envisage an apphcation to be filed
within 6 weeks
from the date of the CoUector’s Award for seeking a
reference under
Section 64 of the 2013 Act, yet, even if the said apphcation
is not
filed within the time so prescribed, the Cohector has
been vested
with the power to entertain an apphcation even after
the expiry of
the said period and that such an apphcation can be
filed within a
further period of one year if the apphcant otherwise
satisfies that
there was sufficient cause for not fihng the application
within the
period specified in the said first proviso.
/
5
HCJfrRRR, J
W.A.No.l86of2024
f
8. In oiip opinion, there is no illegality in the judgment
and order
impugned. This appeal is found to be without any merit
and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous apphcations, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. One CC to Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
2.
One CC to Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, Advocate [OPUC]
3. I^radesK (Our°" "" Development, High Court of
4.
Three ^D^C^ies*^ Acquisition, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. (OUT)
5.
Cnr
/
/
HIGH COURT
DATED:29/02/2024
ORDER
WA.No.186 of 2024
it
>5
Mad
A
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL
X
■■ "B
WITHOUT COSTS