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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not referring the matter to competent authority under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 in spite of the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 submitted before the Respondent in connection with the land, in R.S.No.21/2 of Taduvai Village to an extent of Ac.2-44 1/2 cents and not dispossessing of my representation dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 submitted before the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to pay the compensation individually to the Petitioner and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 to consider my representations dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 and pay the compensation to the Petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR

The Court made the following Order:

Heard Smt. Y. Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not referring the application filed by the petitioner to the appropriate forum under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. The petitioner contends that the subject land initially belonged to one Satram Veera Venkaiah, who purchased it through a registered sale deed in 1950. After his lifetime, his two sons, viz., Satram Seshaiah and Satram Veeranna, have succeeded to the same. The petitioner is the son of Satram Veeranna. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, i.e., Satram Veeranna, the petitioner succeeded to the property to which his father had received as his share. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had acquired the land for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package of Polavaram Project, vide award dated 18-02-2018. In the said award, the name of the petitioner was not shown, although he had succeeded to the property of late Satram Veeranna. Thus, he made a representation to the authorities seeking payment of compensation for the land of Ac.2.44 cents out of Ac.4.89 cents in R.S.No.21/2. It is contended that despite a series of representations being submitted, the respondents have not issued any orders to resolve the petitioner's grievance.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would submit that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation, having regard to the fact that, the Award was passed in 2018, whereas the application was filed on 16.10.2019, followed by another application, dated 29.12.2020.

5. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents referring to the provisions of Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 submits that the authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, if it is filed beyond the period of limitation under section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act,2013.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, through a memo, had placed before the court a copy of the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 13.03.2018, which is within the period of 30 days from the date of passing of the Award.

7. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents disputes the said representation stated to have been filed on 13.03.2018 as it does not contain