IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

***

+W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No.21566 of 2013

W.A.No.460 of 2013

Between:

# 1. Syed Habibulla Shah

S/o. S.R Shah, aged about 59 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

2. Smt. Khadarunnisa Begum,

W/o. Syed Amiruddin Shah, aged about 43 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

… Appellants

AND

$ 1. The State of A.P,

Rep. by the Principal Secretary,

Social Welfare Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector,

East Godavari District,

Kakinada.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda,

East Godavari District.

... Respondents

2

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

W.P.No.21566 of 2013

Between:

# 1. Syed Habibulla Shah

S/o. S.R Shah, aged about 59 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

2. Smt. Khadarunnisa Begum,

W/o. Syed Amiruddin Shah, aged about 43 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

… Petitioners

AND

$ 1. The State of A.P,

Rep. by the Principal Secretary,

Social Welfare Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector,

East Godavari District,

Kakinada.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda,

East Godavari District.

... Respondents

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 04.03.2025

3

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

And

HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No

May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No

to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No

Of the Judgment?

4

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

And

HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+ W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No.21566 of 2013

% Dated: 04.03.2025

W.A.No.460 of 2013

Between:

# 1. Syed Habibulla Shah

S/o. S.R Shah, aged about 59 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

2. Smt. Khadarunnisa Begum,

W/o. Syed Amiruddin Shah, aged about 43 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

… Appellants

AND

$ 1. The State of A.P,

Rep. by the Principal Secretary,

Social Welfare Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector,

East Godavari District,

Kakinada.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

5

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

4. The Tahsildar,

Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda,

East Godavari District.

... Respondents

W.P.No.21566 of 2013

Between:

# 1. Syed Habibulla Shah

S/o. S.R Shah, aged about 59 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

2. Smt. Khadarunnisa Begum,

W/o. Syed Amiruddin Shah, aged about 43 years,

R/o. 46-17-47, Ganugu Veedhi,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry,

E.G District.

… Petitioners

AND

$ 1. The State of A.P,

Rep. by the Principal Secretary,

Social Welfare Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Collector,

East Godavari District,

Kakinada.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector,

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

4. The Tahsildar,

Korukonda Mandal, Korukonda,

East Godavari District.

... Respondents

6

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

! Counsel for the Appellants/ Petitioners : Sri K. Venkat Rao

^Counsel for Respondents/ Respondents : Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1) AIR 1993 S.C. 2517

2) (2011) 9 SCC 354

3) 2022 SCC Online SC 1408

4) 2022 LawSuit (SC) 594

5) 2017 (11) SCC 339

7

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

APHC010429402013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3525]

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT APPEAL No: 460 of 2013 & WRIT PETITION No: 21566 of 2013

WRIT APPEAL No: 460 of 2013

Between:

Syed Habibulla Shah, Rajahmundry, E.g.dist., & Anr.

and Others

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

The State Of A P Rep By Prl Secretary S W Hyd 3

Otrs and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. KAKARA VENKATA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

WRIT PETITION No: 21566 of 2013

Between:

Syed Habibulla Shah, Rajahmundry, & Anr. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of A P S W Hyd 3 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

8

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KAKARA VENKATA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

The Court made the following common Judgment:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The land of the appellants/ writ petitioners herein, admeasuring

Ac.8.37 cents in Sy.No.321/1 and 321/2 & 188 of Gummuluru Village,

Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, was initially sought to be

acquired for the purpose of providing house sites for the weaker sections

of the society. It appears that, ultimately, only Ac.5.73 cents of land was

taken over. The appellants had thereupon approached the erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.4234 of 2013, contending

that no award had been passed from 20.12.2003 when a notification had

been issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-

in-after referred to as “the 1894 Act”) till the filing of the writ petition. The

appellants contended that Section 11-A of the 1894 Act mandated that,

where an award is not passed within three years from the date of

notification under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, the entire proceedings

would lapse. The appellants, on this basis, contended that the acquisition

process had lapsed and the land should be given back to the appellants.

9

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

2. A Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, disposed of

the writ petition, by an order, dated 25.02.2013. The Learned Single

Judge noticed that Section 17 of the 1894 Act was invoked on the ground

of urgency and that the mandate under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act

would not apply, wherever Section 17 has been invoked. The Learned

Single Judge took this view on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh

1

. The Learned Single Judge also noticed that the said view of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court was doubted in a subsequent Judgment in

the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Another

2

, and that the matter had been referred to a larger bench.

However, the Learned Single Judge, on the ground that the ratio laid

down in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) continues, till a contrary view is

taken by a larger bench, had dismissed the writ petition.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached

this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

4. Sri K. Venkat Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants contends that the reference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in

Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (2-supra), has been answered by a

Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Airtech

1

AIR 1993 S.C. 2517

2

(2011) 9 SCC 354

10

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. & Another

3

. He would

submit that the Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken the

view that the acquisition process would lapse, even when Section 17 of

the 1894 Act is invoked, wherever 80 % of the compensation had not

been paid. The learned counsel would contend that since the appellants

were not paid 80 % of the compensation, as required under Section 17 of

the 1894 Act, the proceedings would have to be treated as lapsed.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the land in

question has already been converted into house sites and various

persons are in occupation and have constructed structures in the lands.

In view of these developments, the learned counsel would contend that

the appellants would have to be compensated by fixing compensation

under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (here-in-

after referred to as “the 2013 Act”) by fixing a fresh date that is to be

taken as the date for fixation of compensation.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

contends that compensation of 80 % had been offered to the appellants

at the time of issuance of notification of Section 17 of the 1894 Act and

the appellants had refused to receive the same. He relies upon the

pleadings set out in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition before the

3

2022 SCC Online SC 1408

11

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

Learned Single Judge for this purpose. The learned Assistant

Government Pleader would also draw the attention of this Court to the

subsequent paragraphs in the Judgment of the Full-Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (3-

supra). In these passages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking into

account similar facts where subsequent developments had resulted in a

situation where land could not be returned to the affected persons, had

directed fixation of compensation, as per the subsequent award passed in

that case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also contend

that, even in the present case, an award, dated 12.04.2013, had been

passed after the Judgment had been rendered by the Learned Single

Judge. He would contend that the date for compensation would have to

be taken on the aforesaid basis, in the event of this Court not accepting

the compensation fixed under the award passed on 12.04.2013.

7. In the case of Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had taken the view that once notification under Section 17

of the 1894 Act is invoked and possession of the land is taken, there

would be no lapse of acquisition proceedings, as the land stands vested

in the State. The Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

subsequent Judgment of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (3-supra),

without disputing the said view, had held that a notification, under Section

17 of the 1894 Act, alone is not sufficient and the proceedings would not

12

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

lapse only if 80 % of the compensation, as required under Section 17 of

the 1894 Act, is paid immediately. The Full-Bench took the view that

where such payment is not made, it would have to be held that

notification of Section 17 of the 1894 Act itself is invalid and consequently

the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act would lapse if an award is

not passed within the time frame set out under Section 11-A of the 1894

Act.

8. In the present case, the pleading of the Acquisition

Authorities is that 80 % of the compensation was offered to the appellants

and the said offer was refused. Without going into the question of whether

there was an offer or not, it would suffice to point out that the said 80 %

compensation was not deposited in Court, in the event of the appellants

refusing to receive the said compensation. In such circumstances, it

would have to be held that the requirement for payment of 80 % of the

compensation under Section 17 of the 1894 Act had not been complied

with. Consequently, the protection afforded to the Acquisition Authorities,

under the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad

Jain (1-supra) would not be available in the present case.

9. It is an admitted fact that no award had been passed in the

acquisition process, initiated in the year 2003, till an award was passed

13

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

on 12.04.2013. Since this award is way beyond the period set out under

Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed.

10. However, the fact remains that the land in question has now

been developed and various structures have now come up in the land

and a large number of people have been alloted plots in the said land. In

such circumstances, it would not be possible to set the clock back and

hand over possesson of this land to the appellants.

11. The appellants would have to be compensated appropriately

for losing this land and the fact that the acquisition proceedings have

themselves lapsed would have to be taken into account. It may also be

noted that the appellants have not received compensation and the same

has been deposited in Court. In such circumstances, it is clear that the

appellants have been given no compensaton for the last 22 years.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court were faced with a similar

situation, in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (3-supra), and

had held that it would be appropriate to take the date of passing of the

award as the appropriate date for fixing of compensation. This Court also

deems it appropriate that a similar course of action is undertaken in the

present case. Accordingly, the award, dated 12.04.2013, is set aside and

the 3

rd

respondent- Acquisition Officer, shall undertake a fresh exercise of

14

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

acquisition of compensation by taking the market value of the land as on

12.04.2013.

13. The further issue that remains before this Court is whether

the provisions of the 1894 Act or the provisions of the 2013 Act are to be

applied. In the Judgment of the Full-Bench, the provisions of the 1894 Act

were applied as the award had been passed before the 2013 Act had

come into force. In the present case also, the award has been passed

before the provisions of the 2013 Act have come into force. However, Sri

K. Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noida Industrial

Development Authority vs. Ravindra Kumar & Others

4

and Sahara

Indian Commercial Corporation Limited and Others vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others

5

to contend that, in a similar situation, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had taken the view that the compensation should be

awarded in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act and not the 1894

Act.

14. In the case of Noida Industrial Development Authority (4-

supra), possession was taken invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the

1894 Act. The possession of a part of the land was taken in the year 2008

and possession of the remaining area was taken on 15.06.2013. In this

4

2022 LawSuit (SC) 594

5

2017 (11) SCC 339

15

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

case, the award had been passed on 12.01.2011 and 31.12.2013 in

respect of the separate possessions of land which were taken in 2008

and 2013 respectively. In the case of Sahara Indian Commercial

Corporation Limited (5-supra), a similar situation arose. Though the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noida Industrial Development

Authority (4-supra) and Sahara Indian Commercial Corporation

Limited (5-supra) had applied the provisions of 2013 Act, we would

deem it appropriate to direct that the provisions of the 1894 Act be

applied in as much as the Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (3-supra), in similar situation, had

applied the provisions of 1894 Act.

15. In the circumstances, the present Writ Appeal and the Writ

Petition are disposed of, setting aside the award of the 3

rd

respondent,

dated 12.04.2013, with a direction to the 3

rd

respondent to pass an award

within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order.

Needless to say, the appellants are entitled to all separate benefits,

including interest, on delayed payment from the date on which the

possession of land had been taken over till the date of payment. Apart

from this, the appellants are also entitled to withdraw the amount

deposited in the Court. Such withdrawal shall be taken into account when

calculating the final compensation that would be payable to the

appellants. The respondents 1 & 2 shall take all necessary steps to

16

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

ensure that the payment of compensation, fixed by the 3

rd

respondent,

shall be paid within a period of three (03) months from the date of the

award. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_______________________

Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 04.03.2025

MJA

17

RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J

W.A.No.460 of 2013 & W.P.No. 21566 of 2013

68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST ICE Dr. K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT APPEAL No: 460 of 2013 & WRIT PETITION No: 21566 of 2013

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

04.03.2025

MJA