Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
Sathram Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 20968/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y Maha Lakshmi
For the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR
The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is beneficial legislation, necessitating a liberal interpretation of limitation periods for seeking references under Section 64, particularly when the claimant's omission from the award suggests a lack of awareness of the acquisition proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Reference to Authority - Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Delay in filing application - The RFCTLARR Act is a beneficial legislation; therefore, a liberal interpretation is required. Where a claimant's name is omitted from the award, the claim for reference cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay as the claimant may not have been aware of the proceedings. (Para 11)
(B) Procedural Compliance - Deposit of Compensation - Section 77(2) of the Act - Upon referring a dispute to the appropriate authority, the Collector is mandated to deposit the awarded compensation amount before said authority. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the claim for reference under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 can be rejected on the ground of delay when the petitioner's name was not reflected in the award.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks compensation for land omitted from the acquisition award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over the timeliness of the reference application and evidence of filing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. application of section 64 rfctlarr act and impleadment of necessary parties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. liberal interpretation of beneficial legislation to allow reference despite delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
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 t
