Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Guntaka Satyanarayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondent
WP No.10750 of 2024
Decided on : 28-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Soma Sekhara Naidu
For the Respondent: G. Arun Showri (Central Government Counsel); (Ms.) Sodum Anvesha (SC for NHAI); Government Pleader for Revenue
The application of the Right to Fair Compensation Act was misapplied, requiring proper procedures under the Electricity Act for determining compensation on non-agricultural land, maintaining statutory remedies available for disputes.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Declaration of compensation arising from the shifting of electrical HT lines - The petitioner alleged arbitrary and unjust compensation determining land value without notice, countered by respondents arguing adherence to G.O. Rt. No.83, and a statutory alternative remedy under the Electricity Act exists. The court set aside the increased compensation citing misapplication of law while recognizing the prior conversion of land for non-agricultural use. (Paras 4, 5, 35)
(B) Natural Justice - The petitioner argued that the original compensation award violated principles of natural justice due to lack of notice and opportunity to contest valuation of land. The respondents maintained proper procedures were followed under applicable laws. (Paras 4, 5, 12)
(C) Statutory Remedy - The respondents claimed a statutory alternative remedy exists with the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission for disputes regarding compensation, necessitating exhaustion of said remedy before judicial intervention. (Paras 31, 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the owner of land affected by the erection of HT lines for a national highway project, contested an initial compensation award determined without proper notice and subsequently sought a revision. The land conversion to non-agricultural use was argued as grounds for enhanced compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the application of the Wrong Act No.30 of 2013 led to erroneous compensation standards and upheld rightful compensation assessment for non-agricultural land while setting aside the non-compliance with statutory processes.
Issues: The court addressed whether the original compensation violated principles of natural justice and if the statutory alternative remedy was adequately pursued before seeking judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the conversion of land to non-agricultural use validly justified compensation adjustment without applying Act No.30 of 2013, reiterating the need for statutory remedies and proper adherence to procedural regulations under the Electricity Act.
Result: The writ petition is allowed-in-part, setting aside the revised order of compensation under Act No.30 of 2013.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for mandamus regarding compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background on land ownership and compensation disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. facts of land ownership and compensation claims. (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments regarding the legality of compensation determination. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. opposing arguments on the application of laws and regulations. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. judicial precedents relevant to infrastructure projects. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 7. final court observations leading to the judgment. (Para 22 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 30) |
| 8. court's directives on compensation and statutory alternatives. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief :
"...To issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.11082/LA/NH-16/Pkg.III/PIU/V/NHAI/2023-24/94, dated 20.04.2024 is not paying the revised compensation fixed by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner land in RS No.639/1A1 to an extent of Acs.2250 cents in Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural fallen HT lines, without any Authority as arbitrary, illegal and as unjust and issue a consequential direction directing the respondent No.3 to pay revised compensation (Rs.1,90,57,500/- - Rs.26,56,376/- = Rs.1,64,01,124/-) to the petitioner by implementing order in Rc.Coord-3/977/2002, dated 19.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 not to take any steps for any for installation of electrical towers in the land of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders..."
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :
3. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in RS.No.639/IAI to an extent of Ac.0.2250 Cents in Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, NTR District and he has been cultivating the subject land since long time and due to fast urbanization, he made an application seeking for conversion of subject land for non-agriculture purposes, but, the said application is pending for consideration before the respondents/concerned authority. Pending his application, respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 on 15.07.2022 for fixing the compensation in respect of lands to be affected, in view of shifting/erection of electrical High Tension (HT) lines, pursuant to the laying of a National Highway bypass road from Chinna Avutapalli Village to Gollapudi in Vijayawada, Gundugolanu Section of NH-16 in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Bharatmala Pariyojana on Hybrid Annuity Mode. Respondent No.3 also addressed a letter to the Electrical Department Authorities requesting for taking steps for such shifting of Electrical HT lines, as per the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 herein passed an award vide proceedings dated 23.11.2022 without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate the nature of lands of the petitioner and unilaterally determined the compensation as Rs.26,56,376/- as if the land of the petitioner is an agricultural land, ignoring the nature of the land which is situated within the urban agglomeration and also adjacent to the Corporation core area. He further submits that respondent No.4 while passing the award dated 23.11.2022 neither observed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 nor observed the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) and also not adhered to the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned Counsel further submits affirms that the land of the petitioner situated in Rs.No.639/1A to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of Nunna Village was converted from Agriculture to non-agriculture purposes as ordered by the competent Authority vide proceedings dated 24.08.2022, which is much prior to the proceedings of the award passed
