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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15566

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
PEELA PADMAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 17506/2021



APHC010297422021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17506/2021 Between:

1. P EELA PADMAVATHI, W/O PVSJ MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT

56 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-1, NEYYALA VEEDHI, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

2. Y ALAPATI LEELA MADHAVA RAO, S/O VENKATA KRISHNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 19-9-18, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, NEW GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. Y ADLAPATI RAVI KIRAN, S/O LEELA MADHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 19-9-18, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, NEW GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

4. G OPISETTY VENKATA RAMANA RAO,, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 50- 13-27C/18, FLAT NO 18, PADMAJA APARTMENT, BEHIND DURGA GANPATHI TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

5. G OPISETTY KANAKA LEELA MAHALAKSHMI,, W/O VENKATA RAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 50-13- 27C/18, FLAT NO 18, PADMAJA APARTMENT, BEHIND DURGA GANPATHI TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), NEW DELHI.

2. T HE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, , NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), HANUMANTHAWAKA JUNCTION, BESIDES VIMS HOSPITAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3. S TATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. T HE DISTRICT COLLETOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VISAKAHAPTNAM DISTRICT, VISAKAHAPTNAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondent authorities in not paying the compensation amount pursuant to the Award No. 53/2018 dated 26-11-2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent vide RC. No. 114/2016/SSRI/ dated 26-11-2018 in respect of 2914 Sq. meters in S.No. 21/1 of Shankaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of National Highways Act 1956 and violative of Art. 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to pay the compensation amount in respect of Award No. 53/2018 dated 26-11-2018 vide RC. No. 114/2016/SSRI/ dated 26-11-2018 in respect of 2914 Sq. meters in S.No. 21/1 of Shankaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to pass necessary orders in respect of letter addressed by 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 75/2020/SA, dated 28-6-2020 qua Award No Award No. 53/2018 dated 26-11-2018 vide RC. No. 114/2016/SSRI/ dated 26-11¬2018 in respect of 2914 Sq. meters in S.No. 21/1 of Shankaram Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MANASA KANNEGANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. MUDUNURI ANAND KUMAR (SC FOR NHAI)

The Court made the following Order:

Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt.

Manasa Kanneganti, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri V.M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel representing Sri M. Anand Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI.

2. It is contended that in a private layout of a Gram Panchayat the petitioners have purchased following extents of plots. The same were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of National High Ways Act, 1956. The details of the same are as follows:

3. It is contended that a notification under Section 3A(1) of the National High ways Act,1956 (herein after referred as ‘the Act’) was issued for widen

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