Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 1185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.
Challa Vasundaramma, W/o Sripathi Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Land Acquisition) Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 15622 Of 2021
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: E V V S Ravi Kumar
For the Respondent: Gp For Land Acquisition (Ap), Gp For Irrigation Comm Area Dev

Where an award under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is passed only for part of the notified land, the excluded land is not acquired; fresh proceedings under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 must determine compensation based on market value as of 01.01.2014.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 - Sections 21(1), 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), and 80 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A - Acquisition of land for submergence of reservoir - Notification under old Act, but award passed only for partial extent - Balance land deleted from award - Subsequently, fresh proceedings initiated under new Act - Held: Where award is not passed for the entire notified land, the balance land cannot be deemed acquired under the old Act - Provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act apply - Respondents directed to determine compensation based on market value as on 01.01.2014 and grant interest under Section 80 - Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits not granted at this stage, liberty reserved to make representation. (Paras 11-18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners owned lands in Jonnavaram Village, acquired for submergence of Somasila Reservoir. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for an extent of Ac.204.50 cents. 80% compensation was paid in advance. However, the award dated 04.03.2009 was passed only for Ac.184.37 cents, excluding the petitioners’ lands of Ac.19.94 cents, as those lands were deleted from acquisition. Thereafter, the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 came into force. Respondents later sought to acquire the deleted lands and issued a notice under Section 21(1) of the 2013 Act. Petitioners sought compensation under the new Act.

Findings of Court:
Since the award was not passed for the entire notified land, the excluded lands were never acquired. The respondents themselves initiated proceedings under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act, with the market value determined as on 01.01.2014 and interest under Section 80. The judgments relied upon by the respondents (Deepak Aggarwal, Manoharlal, Delhi Airtech) were distinguished as they dealt with awards covering the entire notified land.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, or only the balance 20% under the old Act, given that the award under the old Act excluded their lands.

Ratio Decidendi: If a notification under the old Act covered a larger extent but the award was passed only for a part, the remaining land is not acquired. Fresh proceedings under the new Act must follow its provisions, including determination of market value as on 01.01.2014 and grant of benefits under the new Act.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with direction to respondents to pass appropriate proceedings for determination of compensation and interest under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, taking market value as of 01.01.2014. No order as to costs. Pending applications closed.

JUDGMENT :

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Atchyuth, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

2. It is contended that the petitioners are owners of the following extents of land situated in Jonnavaram Village, Atloor Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, as the same has been devolved upon them by inheritance. The details of the same are:

3. It is further contended that the respondents have acquired the entire Jonnavaram village for submergence of backward of Somasila Reservoir, except an extent of Ac.204.50 cents. During the peak season the leftover lands were inundated/submerged. Therefore, invoking the urgency clause, a draft notification was issued for the acquisition of the balance extent of lands of the said village, which are Ac.204.50 cents. At the time of the notification, 80% of the compensation was paid in advance to take possession of the lands. The award was passed on 04.03.2009 in respect of Ac.184.37 cents out of the total extent Ac.204.50 cents, leaving the lands owned by the petitioner. There was correspondence among the respondents regarding whether to acquire the subject lands or recover the compensation already paid at the time of notification. However, the respondents did not make any decision either for the payment of compensation or the passing of the award.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that entire village is inundated and compensation to all the properties in the village have been paid except the petitioner’s lands. The lands are highly prone for submersion thus petitioners are unable to maintain themselves since they are unable to carry out any agricultural activities. Thus, it is contended that after issuance of notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’) had come into effect. It is argued by Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the light of provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act of 2013, since no award was passed after the notification, that was issued under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents must initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for acquisition of lands and pass award.

5. The 4^th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that proposals for payment of the remaining 20% of the compensation to the petitioners were made. However, the office of the CCLA returned the said proposals and requested to take necessary action in terms of the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013

6. The 5^th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the initiation of a requisition for the acquisition of the above FRL lands is a policy matter, and that permission from the Government is necessary for the project authorities to initiate the requisition. It is stated that the issue was pending with the Government. It is further submitted that as the matter was under the consideration of the Government (as on the date of counter-affidavit), further action would be taken in accordance with the directions of the Government regarding the acquisition of the balance extent, of the petitioners to an extent of 12.41 acres situated in Reach No.IX of Jonnavaram Village of Atlur Mandal in YSR Kadapa District.

7. The 5^th respondent filed additional counter affidavit stating that the government has accorded permission vide proceedings dated 21.09.2023 for acquisition of the petitioners lands of an extent of Ac.12.41 cents. In consequence thereof the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings dated 09.11.2023 submitted the proposals to the 1^st respondent, wherein 8 weeks time was sought to complete the entire process of acquisition and to pay compensation as per the provisions of the RFCT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document