SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 364

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
BEERE CHANDRAKALA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 10466/2023



Advocates:
Counsel for the Petitioners, Counsel for the Respondents

The court ruled that the land acquisition process violated statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, leading to the invalidation of the exemption notification and related proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 10A, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 31A - Land acquisition for construction of Road Over Bridge - Petitioners challenged the legality of exemption notifications and the acquisition process, claiming violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice - Court found that the exemption notification was issued without proper authority and that the petitioners were not afforded a fair hearing, leading to the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings were unsustainable. (Paras 1-30)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The court emphasized the necessity of providing an effective opportunity for hearing to affected parties in land acquisition proceedings, reaffirming that any deviation from prescribed procedures undermines the legislative intent. (Paras 25-26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the land acquisition process for a Road Over Bridge, arguing that the exemption from certain provisions of the Act was improperly granted and that their objections were not adequately considered.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the proceedings and award related to the land acquisition, ruling that the petitioners were denied a fair hearing and that the statutory procedures were not followed.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the exemption notification, the legality of the preliminary notification, and whether the petitioners were afforded a fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exemption notification was invalid as it was issued by the District Collector without proper authority, and that the petitioners were not given a fair opportunity to present their objections, violating principles of natural justice.

Result: Writ petitions allowed in part, with the court setting aside the contested proceedings and award.

ORDER

The issue involved in to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Road Over Bridge WP_42111 of 2022 & batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION Nos. 42111 of 2022;1456; 2006, 2536; 10466; 10540 and 10562 of 2023 Maddana Anand and another ….. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ….. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel along with Mr.Bandi Srihari Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy and Mr.O.Uday Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.K.V.Raghuveer, learned Govt. Pleader representing learned Addl. Advocate General **** This Court made the following:

    The issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is with regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Road Over Bridge NJS, J WP_42111 of 2022 & batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209]
    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 10466;10508;
    ….. Petitioners ….. Respondents , learned counsel Mr.K.V.Raghuveer, learned Govt. Pleader Addl. Advocate General batch of writ petitions is with regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Road Over Bridge (for short “ROB”) and the proceedings in relation to the same under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act”).

2) The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record, may briefly be narrated for better appreciation of the case:

3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.27 Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads-II) Department, dated 28.01.2020 granting administrative sanction for construction of two lane ROB in lieu of LC No.2 at Railway Km.1/3-4 of Dharmavaram-Pakala Station on Damajipalli – Tadipatri Road at Km.17/2 in Ananthapuramu District. The Commissioner, R&R Vijayawada, vide proceedings dated 19.11.2020 appointed Social Impact Assessment (for short “SIA”) Agency i.e., Rural Integrated and Social Education Society (RISES) Vijayawada as SIA Team to conduct SIA study with regard to the land acquisition. On 03.12.2020, the SIA Team conducted public consultation meeting as also a survey. Thereafter, on 13.07.2021, the District Collector, Anantapuramu issued proceeding exempting the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act, 2013 and authorized the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram to invite claims from the interested persons for settlement by negotiations. A Gazette Notification dated 18.07.2021 for exemption of Chapter II & III of the Act was published in the Ananthapuramu District Gazette by the District Collector.

4) Subsequently, a Preliminary Notification in Form VI(A) under Section 11 (1) of the Act 2013, dated 19.12.2021, was issued in respect of the lands in Sy.No.23-1B, 23-2B, 24-3B, 27-2, 67-27A, 68-1, 68-2, 396-2A, 401-1A1, 402-1A1, 403-2B to an extent of 1-88 cents for construction of two lane ROB. The said Preliminary Notification was published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper on 30.12.2021 and the Hindu English Daily Newspaper on 31.12.2021. Thereafter, notices were issued to 130 land losers, who were covered under the above mentioned Preliminary Notification and objections were called for vide RC No.1318/2019(F), dated 05.01.2022 and to attend the enquiry on 16.03.2022. Pursuant to the said Notices, Objections dated 10.02.2022 were submitted and the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to change the location of ‘ROB’ to other place, since the petitioners’ houses will be totally demolished.

5) On 11.07.2022 overruling the objections submitted by the petitioners rejection orders were passed and Declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act r/w Sub Rule 1 of Rule 25 of The Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    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

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top