APHC010416032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25654/2022 Between:

Smt. Shaik Khaja Bee and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following Order:

The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the respondents have taken possession of the petitioners land for the purpose of establishment of Open Air Range of D.R.D.O without paying compensation to the petitioners.

02. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the authorities under the guise of requisition from the D.R.D.O dated 17.12.2014 for establishment of Open Air Range of Project DRDO, has forcibly taken possession of the petitioners land which was assigned to them without following the procedure contemplated under the law. Infact no resumption proceedings took place and no notice as contemplated by virtue of provisions of Section 9 of 1977 has been issued. Only to deny compensation to the petitioners, the respondent officials with an antidate created the alleged resumption orders. If the same is allowed to continue the petitioners’ rights will be affected. He further contended that by virtue of the Mekalapandu case and G.O.Ms.No.259, the assignees are also entitled for compensation on par with patta holders. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. Infact the petitioners made a representation on 16.05.2022, but so far the authorities have not acted upon. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied on the judgment of a Coordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.12844 of 2018 dated

14.02.2023.

04. On the other hand, Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter contended that, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as the land has been resumed much prior to the requisition made by the D.R.D.O. The petitioners cannot claim any right for compensation and the G.O referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case. He further contended that after eight years of the requisition proceedings of the D.R.D.O they came up with a representation 16.05.2022, as such the writ petition is meritless and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.

06. The grievance of the petitioners is that the subject land has been assigned to them and at the requisition made by the DRDO for establishment of Open Air Range Project for D.R.D.O the land has been taken forcibly without acquiring or taking consent from the petitioners alleging that resumption orders were passed on 17.10.2014. It is not in dispute that the land is an assigned land. The respondents did not place on record the material with regard to resumption proceedings as to whether notices in form-I and form-II as required under law were issued to the petitioners and also whether any panchanamma was recorded before taking possession from the petitioners. The assignees are entitled for compensation on par with the patta land holders by virtue of judgment in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer vs Mekala Pandu and others, 1996(6) ALT 322( S.B). In the said judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred supra, it was categorically held that the assignees are entitled for compensation on par with patta holders, by virtue of Mekala Pandu’s case.

Though the respondents are contending that the resumption orders have be