The court determined that compensation for land acquisition must be based on a fixed market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre, as established by government directives, while addressing the rights of landowners and agricultural laborers under relevant legislation.

The Court made the following Common order :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions and the facts arising out of all these Writ Petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.43730 of 2016, 22037 of 2018 & 110 of 2019, Sri U.D. Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6455 of 2022, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6252 of 2021 and Smt. S. Pranathi, Learned Special Government Pleader in the office of the Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents & Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, had allotted an extent of Ac.201.80 cents of land, in various survey numbers of Vangali Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to the Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy. The alienation of this land was done, under G.O.Ms.No.332, dated 21.07.2016, and G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, claiming ownership, occupation and other rights over an extent of Ac.20.88 cents of this land, had approached this Court by way of the above Writ Petitions complaining of non-payment of compensation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act 30 of 2013”), the direction of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors., Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors.,, [2004 2 ALD 451] as well as G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012.

4. The case of the petitioners, as set out by Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, is as follows:-

a) Ac.10.61 cents of land has been assigned to eight persons who are all petitioners, in W.P.Nos.22037 of 2018 & W.P.No.110 of 2019 and about 10 persons are in occupation of the land and cultivating the same, without D-Form pattas, for an extent of Ac.10.27 cents. Apart from this, about 10 persons, who are landless agricultural workers and are dependent their livelihood on the aforesaid Ac.20.88 cents of land, have also been affected.

b) As of today, the assignees holding D-Form pattas had been paid compensation, as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 on a market value of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. The persons in occupation of the land, without D-form pattas, were paid ex-gratia amounts of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. No rehabilitation program had been taken up for the remaining 10 agricultural labourers, who are all the petitioners in this batch of cases.

c) The market value of the land is not Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, but Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. The Communication bearing Rc.No.638/2015/E2, dated 16.02.2017, between the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Special Chief Secretary of the Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada, and G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, show that even the respondents have fixed the market value of the land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. As far as the agricultural labourers are concerned, no steps for rehabilitation have been taken despite a direction of this Court, dated 30.09.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6455 of 2022, to conduct a survey for ascertaining the status of the agricultural labourers and for submission of a report in this regard.

d) The case of the persons, who had been assigned pattas, is that the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors., Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors., required the authorities to pay compensation, on par with the private patta holders, on the basi