THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order

dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.38942 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed while directing the appellants herein to pay compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act, 2013”).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The facts essential for adjudication of this appeal are that the respondents/writ petitioners were in possession of lands admeasuring about Ac.10.11 guntas, situated at Ayyagaripeta Village, Sathuptalli Mandal, Khammam District. These lands were acquired by the Government for the public purpose of construction of the Bethapalli Flood Flow Canal by the Irrigation Department and the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”).

3. The Government issued a draft notification dated 17.07.1990 under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, for acquisition of the land owned or held by the writ petitioners. Subsequently, physical possession of these lands was taken by the Engineering Department on 02.01.1989, and the lands were formally resumed through the issuance of proceedings by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathuptalli vide Rc.No.1031/A/96 dated 17.04.1997. Thus, the acquisition process under the old law had substantially advanced and possession had been secured by the Government.

4. However, the grievance of the writ petitioners was that despite the acquisition and resumption of their lands, neither compensation nor ex-gratia payment had been made to them. To highlight the protracted delay and non-payment, some of the assignees filed Writ Petition No.15731 of 1994 before this Court. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its order dated 02.11.1996 directed the appellants/respondents therein to complete the acquisition proceedings and to pay the compensation/ex- gratia within a period of two (02) months. Despite such directions, the authorities failed to remit any compensation to the landowners.

5. In the light of the inaction, the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.38942 of 2016 before this Court, claiming compensation as per the provisions of the new Act, 2013, more specifically invoking Sections 24(2)

and 30 of the Act, 2013. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides and perusing the material on record, allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2016 in Rc.No.G/7406/1997 issued by appellant No.2/respondent No.2 therein-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, which had preliminarily fixed ex-gratia at Rs.25,000 per acre with 30% solatium subject to availability of funds and compliance with assignment rules, and directed the appellants to pay compensation in accordance with the Act, 2013, within three (03) months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellants preferred the present Writ Appeal.

6. Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellants and Sri C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri KJVN Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

7. Now the only question that arises for our consideration is:

“Whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the order dated 20.02.2024 in W.P.No.38942 of 2016?”

8. Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to extract Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 which was considered by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.02.2024, which reads as under:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the La