THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.353 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

07.11.2024, passed in W.P.No.24550 of 2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the appellants that they are the assignees of the lands in question and the respondent authorities have acquired their lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the beneficiaries. It is their further case that as per the proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, of the Special Grade Deputy Collector, the market value of the lands in question was Rs.32,00,000/- per acre and if

30% solatium is added, it comes to Rs.41,60,000/-. But, contrary to the said proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, the respondents have awarded less amount of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre as ex gratia vide proceedings, dated 08.12.2011. It is their further case that as per the law laid down by a larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu1, even the assignees are entitled to be paid compensation as per the market value. As admittedly, the ex gratia awarded by the respondents was contrary to the law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) and also the proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the subject Writ Petition, and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order, dated 07.11.2024, was pleased to dismiss the subject Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches, even though the respondents have not filed their detailed counter.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the appellants are illiterates and their valuable right

1 AIR 2004 (AP) 250 (LB)

to receive fair and equitable compensation was denied. The appellants were justified in filing the subject Writ Petition with a delay of 12 years. If the respondents have filed their counter, an opportunity would have been given to the appellants to prove their case either by filing reply to the counter affidavit or having an occasion to explain the delay in approaching the Court. But no such opportunity was given to the appellants by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the subject Writ Petition without there being any counter.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had further contended that as the market value and ex gratia were already determined by the respondents vide proceedings, dated 22.06.2010, the issue remains to be answered by the respondents is as to why they were denying the market value as determined by the proceedings, dated 22.06.2010. If only a counter has been invited from the respondents, the case would have been adjudicated in a better way and in the interest of justice. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the subject Writ Petition in the absence of a counter. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 07.11.2024, and let the matter be remitted to the learned Single Judge, so as to enable the respondents to file a counter and also permit the appellants to file reply, if any, to the said counter.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the subject Writ Petition on the ground that the appellants have approached the Court with a delay of more than 12 years. Learned Government Pleader further contended that in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the contentions of the appellants and ha