WP/9800/2022 of A. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of A.P. on 1 April 2026

1. A. VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O A. TATA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-49/5, KAGITHA VILLAGE, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE (LAND ACQUISITION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DT.

2. THE A P I I C, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.I.I.C. BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI POST,TOWN, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM.

4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, APIIC (LAND-ACQUISITION) A.P.I.I.C. OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to pass an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, ignoring the fact that land situated in Sy.No.95/3, to an extent of Ac. 0.60 cents, situated at Nyayampudi Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and treating the said land as agricultural land as illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of

Right to Fair Compensation, 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners dated 8-2-2022, 9-3-2022, 14- 3-2022, before passing the award to grant compensation to the above said land as per the Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 by taking into consideration of Market value, Registration value/Certificate issued by the registration and stamps Department, and pass pleased to direct the respondents to take decision on objections submitted by the petitioner dated 8-2-2022m 9-3-2022, 14-3-2022, under Section to the notice 15 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 by taking into consideration of Market value, Registration Value/Certificate issued by the Registration and stamps Department, pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, and pass

Pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass.

pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein / Respondent No.4 in the WP No.9800/2022 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3 and Ms.Munnangi Thanmai Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 4.

2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in contemplating to pass an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, treating the subject land in an extent of Ac.0.60 cents in Sy.No.95/3 situated at Nyayampudi Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as agricultural land, although the same has been converted into non-agricultural land.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that after receipt of objections from the petitioner, the 4th respondent did not issue any requisition for acquisition of the subject land. It is further stated that there is no proposal for acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioner and therefore, the question of granting of compensation as sought by the petitioner would not merit consideration.

4. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the ryots did not give consent for acquisition and demanded higher compensation and that the declaration had lapsed on 26.04.2024. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Anakapalli, has submit a fresh requisition for acquisition of the lands as per G.O.Ms.No.562.

5. However, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before the Court a copy of the written instructions received from the 4th respondent dated 17.02.2026. A perusal of the same reflects as follows: “The land value was fixed @ Rs.1.55 crores per acre as per the LARR Act and payment was also made as per the consents submitted by the ryoths in the negotiation meeting conducted with the ryoths of Nyayampudi Village by the Joint Collector, Anakapalli.

It is to submit that the present petitioner Sri A.Venkateswara Rao S/o. A.Tatarao has also given the claim petition for receiving the compensation amount for an extent of Ac.0.58½ cents @ Rs.1.55 crores per acre and an amount of Rs.90,67,500/- towards land compensation and Fruit Bearing & Non-Fruit Bearing trees for an amount of Rs.1,18,696/- totaling an amount of Rs.91,86,196/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Six only) through RTGS to the petitioners Bank Account No:4475101008013, IFSC No:CNRB0004475, Canara Bank, Tuni Branch vide this office Proceedings Rc.No.107/2020/RI-II, dated 19.04.2025.”

6. Having regard to the above, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the relief sought by the petitioner would not require further consideration.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, insofar as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the petitioner would take appropriate steps in accordance with law and seeks liberty to avail such remedies available under law.

8. In view of the fact that since the grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition namely non-payment of compensation is resolved, no further orders are required to be passed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies seeking enhancement of compensation, if so advised and if permissible under law.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 02.04.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 9800 OF 2022

Date: 02.04.2026 BSK