Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Prashant Kumar Mishra, D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, JJ.
Datla Venkata Appala Prasadaraju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.Nos.32956, 33034 of 2015, 8639 of 2016, W.A.No.852 of 2016
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 254(2) – Tamil Nadu Government enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 10A, 11(1)(a), 109(1), 112 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 – Quashing of Preliminary – Claiming Compensation – Writ petitions and writ appeal involve common issues, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common order – Held, Court must also notice that total area notified for acquisition is 2700 acres – Airport is proposed to be developed in an area of 2200 acres and remaining 500 acres will be used for allied activities – Total number of affected landowners is 1959, out of which 1937 landowners have agreed for consent awards which have since been passedState Government is already in possession acres of land except 37.15 acres, which is surviving for adjudication on merits in these cases – Although writ petitions as filed earlier involved some more area, however, during their pendency, all other petitioners except with regard to 37.15 acres have received compensation by consenting to award – Only a small patch of land in middle of airport remains to be occupied by Government for development of airport – Overwhelming public interest is in favour of allowing construction activity at airport to begin soon and same cannot be left in suspended animation – It is not in public interest, more so when there are no legal grounds, to interfere in these cases – Writ appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
As these writ petitions and writ appeal involve common issues, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.A.No.852 of 2016 arises out of the interim order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.42434 of 2015 in W.P.No.32879 of 2015. Other connected writ appeals are disposed of by separate common judgment dated 09.11.2021. However, W.A.No.852 of 2016 was kept pending because the material papers necessary to be referred in the course of hearing are available in this writ appeal.
3. W.P.No.32956 of 2015 and W.P.No.8639 of 2016 challenge acquisition of petitioners’ land by Preliminary Notification No.2315/2015/G3, dated 31.08.2015, issued by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Vizianagaram District, by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio in view of lapse of lapse of Ordinance No.5 of 2015, with a further prayer to suspend the Notification during pendency of the writ petitions. Similar prayer for quashing of Preliminary Notification No.2314/2015/G3, dated 31.08.2015, was initially made in W.P.No.33034 of 2015. However, by amending the prayer clause, petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of A.P. Amendment Act (Act No.22 of 2018), i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018.
4. A batch of writ petitions was filed challenging the subject land acquisition notifications. However, in all the cases except the present three writ petitions, the matter was settled amicably between the parties and the affected petitioners have received the compensation, rendering the writ petitions infructuous, as has been recorded by this Court in the docket order dated 03.09.2021.
5. Challenge in all these matters is to the notification to acquire land for establishment of an airport at Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District. The Government of India with a view to upgrade and modernise the airport infrastructure, promulgated the Policy on Airport Infrastructure 1997 with the objective of development of airport infrastructure by encouraging private sector involvement. In furtherance of the policy, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to establish a greenfield international airport near Visakhapatnam city since the existing airport in Visakhapatnam is a Defence Airport under the control of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, experiencing operational constraints and lack of scope for its expansion to meet the requirements of an international airport standards. For this purpose, respondent No.7, i.e. Andhra Pradesh Airports Development Corporation Limited, was constituted. The State Government also engaged M/s. RITES Ltd., a Govt. of India enterprise, to study the technical feasibility, suitability of land and preparation of plan, which, in turn, submitted report finding Bhogapuram as the most appropriate place for establishment of a Greenfield international airport. To facilitate construction of airport, the State of Andhra Pradesh decided to acquire about 5311 acres of land by issuing Memo No.512/Airports/A/2015, dated 31.08.2015, instructing the District Collector to notify the land for acquisition.
6. The Government of India issued Ordinance No.5 of 2015 proposing certain amendments to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the LA Act, 2013”, for brevity). As per the said Ordinance, Section 10 of the LA Act, 2013 was amended by introducing Section 10A and brought into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2014. The Ordinance was valid till 31.08.2015. The District Collector issued Rc.No.30/20212/G3 dated 31.08.2015 exempting Chapter II & III of the LA Act, 2013 and published the same in the District Gazette No.298/2015/A8 on 31.08.2015 and, thereafter, issued land acquisition notification, which is sought to be challenged in these petitions. Altho
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was valid as the District Collector, acting within the authority delegated by ....
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
The court established that proper authority and adherence to statutory procedures are essential in land acquisition processes to ensure fairness and legality.
Point of Law : Point No.4 is also answered in favour of the petitioners by holding that the amendment to Rule 34 of the said Rules of 2015 (Karnataka) is not applicable to the subject acquisition pro....
The government must demonstrate clear, specific public interest and compliance with proviso mandates to invoke section 10A exemptions. Without satisfying these jurisdictional facts, the exclusion of ....
The finality of land acquisition proceedings and the principle that challenges to such proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable time.
The Land Acquisition Officer's failure to independently assess objections vitiates the acquisition process, which must comply with statutory requirements including Section 5A of the Land Acquisition ....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
