Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6612
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, Dr K Manmadha Rao, JJ
P. Rathnaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Appeal No: 483 of 2025 | I.A.No: 1 of 2025 | W.P.No: 5833 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy
For the Respondents:The Advocate General
The District Collector cannot act as the appropriate government without specific notification from the State, as required by the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 2013 - Sections 3(e), 10A, 11(1), and 19(1) - Question of acquisition of land for establishing an industrial corridor by the District Collector - Appellant contended violation of the Act due to lack of proper notification - Court emphasized the need for the appropriate government to issue specific notifications for delegating powers - Referred the matter to a Full Bench for authoritative interpretation on the powers of the District Collector in land acquisition. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 30, 36)
(B) Jurisdiction of Appropriate Government - The definition of ‘appropriate government’ mandates that specific notifications from the State Government are necessary to empower the District Collector for land acquisition processes, reaffirming previous rulings. (Paras 26, 28)
(C) Status Quo and Interim Orders - The previous status quo order related to the appellant’s land remains applicable, restraining ongoing acquisition activities until resolution of jurisdictional questions by the Full Bench. (Paras 36).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of land acquisition process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. grounds raised by the appellant against acquisition. (Para 5 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. rejection of previous applications by the court. (Para 6 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. importance of jurisdiction and notifications in acquisitions. (Para 10 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. application of appropriate government provisions. (Para 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. interpretation of ‘appropriate government’ criteria. (Para 26 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. interlocutory order and conclusion on appeal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
The Court made the following: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents.
2. The appellant herein is the owner of various extents of land, in different survey members of Peddetipakam Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupathi District, aggregating to Ac.4.49 cents, having inherited the same from his father. The appellant contends that this land is double crop wet lands irrigated by a Minor Irrigation Tank and bore wells.
3. On 21.03.2006 about 12,000 acres in 15 revenue villages of Chittoor District were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of establishing a Special Economic Zone by M/s. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. This notification included the lands of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said acquisition process initiated, by notification, dated 21.03.2006, the appellant had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.4159 of 2008. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on 28.02.2008, granted an interim order of status quo pending further orders. The interim order is in force, as the Writ Petition has not been disposed of.
5. The appellant raised various grounds in support of his contention as to why the acquisition process cannot be taken forward. It appears that similar Writ Petitions and similar applications have been moved by three other affected persons.
6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of a common order, dated 24.03.2025, passed in the applications filed in all the three Writ Petitions had rejected the applications. Aggrieved by the order of rejection in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No.5833 if 2025, the appellant has approached this Court.
7. The case of the appellant, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, was that the 2"^' respondent-District Collector did not have jurisdiction to issue the notification, dated 15.12.2024, or the declaration, dated 25.02.2025. The petitioner contended that such a notification and declaration could have been issued only by the 1®‘ respondent, who answers the description of ‘appropriate government’. The 2^ respondent cannot be treated to be ‘appropriate government’ inasmuch as no notification, under the proviso to Section 3(e) of Act 30 of 2013, had been issued. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dinesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh .1
8. The appellant had also contended that a project of this nature requires the provisions of Chapter-ll and Chapter-Ill of Act 30 of 2013 to be complied, before an acquisition process can be initiat
