Lalam Sanjeevi v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC

5. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 6 WRIT PETITION NO: 19353/2025 Between: Lalam Narasing Rao(lr), and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD WRIT PETITION NO: 19354/2025 Between: Lalam Lakshmi Kantham and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

3. GP FOR REVENUE

4. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC

5. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 7 WRIT PETITION NO: 19725/2025 Between: Pyla Demudu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

3. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC

4. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 8 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.19328 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.12/2017 in Rc.No.72/2006/RI-I, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.13 cents in Block 5 covered by Sy. Nos.9/1A, 1B, 9/2A to 2D, 9/3, 9/4A to 4C, 9/5, 6, 7, 9/8A to 8D, 9/9A to 9E, 9/10A, 10B, 9/11, 12, 9/13A, 13B, 9/14A, 14B, 10, 12/1 to 10, 15, 17 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19329 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.15/2017 in Rc.No.135/2017/A, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.44.68 cents in Block 10 covered by Sy. Nos.76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 85 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the 9 petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19331 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.08/2017 in Rc.No.175/2006/RI-III, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.64 cents in Block 7 covered by Sy. Nos.31, 32, 33 and 34 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19332 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.11/2017 in Rc.No.56/2006/RI-I, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.49.87 cents in Block 1 covered by Sy. Nos.2/1 to 27, 3/1 to 15, 4/2A to 2G, 5/1, 2, 6/1A to 10, 6/2, 3, 4A, 4B, 7/1, 8/1, 3 to 66, 48/1A to 1G, 48/2A to 2G, 48/3, 48/4, 49/1, 49/2A to 2F, 49/3A to 3D, 49/4A, 4B, 49/5A, 5B, 49/6A to 6C, 49/7A to 7D, 49/8A to 8C, 49/9, 49/10A to 10G of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action 10 of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19346 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.14/2017 in Rc.No.134/2017/JA, dated 20.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.43.80 cents in Block 12 covered by Sy. Nos.11, 13, 14, 24, 29, 30, 36, 54 and 56 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19348 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.10/2017 in Rc.No.70/2006/RI-III, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.38.32 cents in Block 9 covered by Sy. Nos.64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 and 75 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess 11 the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19350 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.3/2018 in Rc.No.135/2017/A, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.29.71 cents in Block 10 covered by Sy. Nos.84 and 85 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19352 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.5/2017 in Rc.No.58/2006/RI-II, dated 14.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.24.66 cents in Block 2 covered by Sy. Nos.50, 52, 53 and 55 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. 12 W.P.No.19353 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.7/2017 in Rc.No.57/2006/RI-II, dated .09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.43 cents in Block 4 covered by Sy. Nos.43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 57 and 58 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.19354 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.5/2018 in Rc.No.134/2017/JA, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.26.70 cents in Block 12 covered by Sy. Nos.98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 114 and 115 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. 13 W.P.No.19725 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.02/2018 in Rc.No.74/2006/RI-III, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.15.57 cents in Block 8 covered by Sy. Nos.91, 93 and 95 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District. W.P.No.16592 of 2025 This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.04/2018 in Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block 11 covered by Sy. Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District as mentioned in Table-A of the writ affidavit without payment of just and fair compensation and R&R benefits. 14

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. (a) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in these batch of cases submits that the petitioners herein are owning and having rights and interest in various extents of agricultural lands among other lands acquired from their ancestors in different survey numbers of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District as detailed in Table-A as under: S. No. Sy. No. Extent of land Awardee Name

1. 88/1A

0.4

2. 3.

4. 88/1B 88/1C

0.3 0.3 88/1D

0.49

5. 88/1E

0.18

7. 8. 88/2A

0.28 88/2B 88/2C

0.15 0.28 Lalam Demudu Ruttala Appalaraju Lalam Varahalamma Lalam Rambabu Lalam Varahalamma Lalam Rambabu Lalam Demudu Lalam Narayana Lalam Varahalamma Ruthala Sathibabu Rangala Narasingarao Lalam Narayya @ Thata Lalam Mohanarao Sariupilli Appalanaidu Lalam Chinnodu Mandala Atchiyyanaidu Rangala Varalakshmi Rangala Naidu Rangala Simhachalam Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Rambabu Lalam Chinnodu Lalam Ramesh Petitioner/ representative when awardee is deceased Lalam Sanjeevi Relation- ship of L.R. deceased awardee Wife Lalam Sanjeevi Lalam Narasingarao Wife Son Compensa- tion offered 5,66,800 4,25,100 4,25,100 6,94,330 Lalam Lakshmi Wife 2,55,060 Lalam Satyavathi Wife 3,96,760 Lalam Lakshmi Wife 2,12,550 3,96,760

9. 88/2D

0.21

10. 11. 88/2E 88/2F

0.21 0.15

12. 88/2G

0.61

13. 88/2H

0.28

14. 88/2I

0.36

15. 16. 88/2J 88/2K

0.21 0.2

17. 88/2L

0.03

18. 88/2M

0.18

19. 88/2N

0.2

20. 88/3A

0.21

21. 88/3B

0.19

22. 88/3C

0.15

23. 88/3D

0.15

24. 88/3E

0.43

25. 88/3F

0.22

26. 88/3G

0.1

27. 88/4A

0.57

28. 29. 88/4B 88/4C

0.39 0.17

30. 88/4D

0.1

31. 88/4E

0.4

32. 88/4F

0.12

33. 88/4G

0.12

34. 88/4H

0.15 15 Lalam Varahalamma Lalam Ramesh Lalam Demudu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Rambabu Lalam Ramesh Lalam Chinnodu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Demudu Lalam Naidubabu Lalam Chinnodu Lalam Sathibabu Lalam Ramesh Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Kondababu Lalam Sriramulu Lalam Venkata Lakshmi Lalam Narayana Lalam Varahalamma Ruthala Venkanna Ruthala Gangaraju Lalam Narayana Lalam Varahalamma Ruthala Venkanna Ruthala Gangaraju Ruthala Venkanna Ruthala Gangaraju Ruthala Gangaraju Ruthala Ramu Lalam Sanjeevi Wife Satyavathi Satyavathi Satyavathi Satyavathi Lalam Lakshmi Satyavathi Sanjeevi Lalam Lakshmi Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife 2,97,570 2,97,570 2,12,550 5,80,970 3,96,760 5,10,120 2,97,570 2,83,400 42,510 2,55,060 2,83,400 2,97,570 2,69,230 2,12,550 2,12,550 6,09,310 3,11,760 1,41,700 8,07,690 Kondababu Lalam Ramana Husband Son 5,52,630 2,40,890 Narasiyamma Atchiyamma Lalam Sandhya Narasiyamma Atchiyamma Narasiyamma Atchiyamma Atchiyamma Wife Wife Daughter Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife 1,41,700 5,66,800 1,70,040 1,70,040 2,12,550

35. 88/4I

0.2

36. 89

5.58

37. 38. 39. 40. 90/1A 90/1B 90/1C 90/1D

0.15 0.08 0.05 0.05

41. 90/1E

0.15

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 90/1F 90/1G 90/1H 90/1I 90/1J 90/1K 90/1L 90/1M 90/1N 90/1O 90/1P 90/1Q 90/1R 90/1S 90/1T 90/1U

0.05 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.1 0.05 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.38

0.21 0.3 0.05 0.21 0.37 0.04 16 Lalam Venkata Lakshmi Lalam Nookulu Lalam Sri Ramulu Paila Appalakonda Inaparthi Venkatarao Lalam Chinna Appala Konda Lalam Kondalarao Rayavarapu Apparao Rayavarapu Kondalrao Mutyalampalli Ramu Rayavarapu Rajyalakshmi Rayavarapu Adilakshmi Lalam Nookulu Paila Nookulu Paila Ramana Paila Rangaraju Lalam Narayanamma Singampalli Appanna Singampalli Rambabu Paila Gangaraju Singampalli Peda Appala Chalapalli Varahalamm Paila Demudu Paila Satyam Kasireddy Ramurthy Lalam Kondalarao Lekkala Gangaraju Lekkala Demudu Paila Demudu Paila Satyam Golli Ramarao Golli Demudu Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Gangaraju Lekkala Ramarao Lekkala Pothuraju Golli Ramarao Paila Demudu Paila Satyam Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Kasireddy Ramurthy Lalam Kondalarao Kasireddy Ramurthy Lekkala Pentayya Kondababu Rajubabu Husband Son 2,83,400 Naidu Babu Ganga Bhavani Son Daughter 79,06,860 Gorle Lakshmi Chinna Appalanaidu Srinu Daughter Son Son Kondamma Vijay Lakshmi Lakshmi Kantham Wife Wife Wife Kondamma Wife Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Grand Son Grand Son Grand Son Grand Son Grand Son Gangadhar Sai Grand Son Kondamma Wife Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Vijay Lakshmi Lakshmi Kantham Vijay Lakshmi Lakshmi Grand Son Grand Son Wife Wife Wife Wife 2,12,550 1,13,360 70,850 70,850 2,12,550 70,850 1,13,360 3,54,250 1,55,870 1,41,700 70,850 2,40,890 70,850 70,850 53,84,560 2,97,570 4,25,100 70,850 2,97,570 5,24,290 56,680

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64. 65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 90/1V 90/1W 90/1X 90/1Y 90/1Z

0.07 0.04 0.22 0.1 0.08 90/1AA 90/1AB 90/1AC 90/1AD

0.154 0.21 0.1 0.08 90/1AE 90/1AF 90/1AG

0.06 0.1 0.08

70. 90/1AH

0.23

1.1

0.05

1.03

0.39

0.41

4.74

77. 97/B1A

0.21

78. 97/B1B

0.21

79. 97/B1C

0.4

80. 97/B1D

1.56

81. 97/B1E

1.04

82. 93.

84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 97/B1F 97/B1G

2.45 0.31 97/B1H 97/B1I 97/B1J 97/B1K 97/B1L 97/B1M 97/B1N 97/B1O

0.23 0.3 0.3 0.13 0.1 0.3 0.82 0.58 17 Paila Gangaraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lalam Kondalarao Golli Ramarao Golli Ramarao Golli Sathish Lekkala Ramarao Kasireddy Ramurthy Lekkala Pothuraju Golli Srinu Golli Sathish Kasireddy Ramurthy Kasireddy Ramurthy Golli Srinu Golli Sathish Paila Nookulu Paila Ramana Paila Gangaraju Lalam Narasingarao Pinnamaraju Venkatapathi Raju Lalam Narasingarao Pinnamaraju Venkatapathi Raju Lalam Ramana Lalam Rajubabu Pinnamaraju Venkatapathi Raju Kasireddy Appara Kasireddy Ramurthy Kasireddy Appara Kasireddy Ramurthy Kasireddy Appara Kasireddy Ramurthy Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Thatayyalu Vasupalli Ramana Gorli Demulamma Golli Ramana Golli Appalanaidu Golli Rambabu Golli Govindu Golli Demudu Lalam Srinivasarao Lalam Naidu Lekkala Ramarao Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Lekkala Pothuraju Golli Sathish Golli Sathish Golli Sathish Gangadhar Sai Lakshmi Kantham Grand Son Wife Vijay Lakshmi Gangadhar Sai Wife Grand Son Vijay Lakshmi Vijay Lakshmi Wife Wife 99,190 56,680 3,11,740 1,41,700 1,13,360 2,12,550 2,97,570 1,41,700 1,70,040 85,020 1,41,700 Ganga Bhavani Daughter 3,25,910 15,58,700 70,850 Sandhya Wife 14,59,510 Vijay Lakshmi Vijay Lakshmi Vijay Lakshmi Satyavathi Satyavathi Gorli Appalanaidu Wife Wife Wife Wife Wife Son Ramanamma Wife Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Gangadhar Sai Grandson Grandson Grandson Grandson Grandson Grandson Grandson 5,52,630 5,80,970 67,16,580 2,97,570 2,97,570 5,66,800 22,10,520 14,73,680 34,71,650 4,39,270 3,25,910 4,25,100 4,25,100 1,84,210 1,41,700 4,25,100 11,61,940 8,21,860 18 Lakshmi Kantham Chinna Appalanaidu Wife Son Ammalu Satyavathi Wife Wife Sahadevudu Sahadevudu Jagannatham Jagannatham Sahadevudu Sahadevudu Sahadevudu 77,93,500 7,22,670 7,22,670 6,09,310 23,09,710 24,08,900

92. 97/B1P

5.5

93. 94. 95. 97/B1Q 97/B1R 97/B1S

0.51 0.51 0.43

96. 97/B1T

1.63

97. 97/B1U

1.7 Total Extent Lalam Kondalarao Lalam Ramulu Gorli Appalanaidu Gorli Rambabu Lalam Gangaraju Lalam Narayanamma Lalam Babulu Gorli Demudu Gorli Ramana Gorli Govindu Gorli Govindu Pilli Nookalu Palli Thatalu Palli Rambabu Pilli Nookalu Pilli Paidiyya Pilli Sahadevudu Pilli Suryanarayan Pilli Paidiyya Pilli Paidiyya Pilli Paidiyya Pillo Suresh Pilli Pentayya Pilli Jagannatham Ausuri Sarojini (b) While so, the government of Andhra Pradesh, in view of setting up of an Integrated Special Economic Zone in Atchuthapuram and Rambilli Mandals near Visakhapatnam city, covering an extent of 9200 Acres from various villages forming part of SEZ, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) acquired non-cultivable lands from farmers under the Land Acquisition Act in phases. After paying compensation, APIIC took possession and allotted 4600 Acres to various companies while the remaining 4323 Acres remained unallotted, lying barren and uncultivated. (c) Initially the lands of the petitioners were not included in the notified SEZ area. Nevertheless, in November 2005, the 6th respondent 19 made requisition for acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.417.50 cents in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal for expansion of Integrated Special Economic Zone. Further the government proposed to acquire the lands including the subject lands of the petitioners and notified the same u/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further u/s.6 of the said Act, 1894 have been declared and published in the A.P. Gazette. Aggrieved by this, certain farmers of Gorapudi village filed W.P.No.10328 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the proposed acquisition in respect of the lands notified in Sy. Nos.2 to 83 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District, measuring an extent of Ac.416.11 cents and obtained status quo orders by way of interim order dated 02.05.2008. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated

21.06.2017 directing the respondents therein to make award keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), in particular Section 24(1)(a) of the Act 30 of 2013 and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. (d) Further, another writ petition No.16744 of 2008 was also filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the lands notified in Sy.Nos.84 to 115 which was disposed of vide common order 20 dated 07.06.2017 directing the respondents therein to conduct enquiry u/s.5A of the Act and communicate the decision taken to the petitioners therein. Further, W.A.No.727 of 2018 was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017 and interim order dated 20.08.2018 has been granted by this Hon’ble Court suspending all further proceedings in relation to the proposed acquisition which was extended from time to time. But it has to be noted that during the time of granting the said interim order dated 20.08.2018, the respondent authorities therein have not brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court nor stated anything on record regarding passing of the impugned award herein in the intervening period between after passing of the order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017 and before granting the interim order in W.A.No.727 of 2018 dated 20.08.2018. (e) To the utter surprise, shock and dismay of the petitioners herein, it was learnt that as per the order of the learned Single Judge dated

21.06.2017 in W.P.No.10328 of 2018, the 5th respondent passed in toto 12 awards with respect to the total extent of land of Ac.417.50 cents in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District divided into 12 blocks from 1 to 12. Particularly, the 5th respondent passed Award No.04 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018 (impugned award) in the land acquisition proceedings vide Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 21 (impugned proceedings) with respect to the subject lands in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block 11 covered by Sy.Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The copy of the said impugned award has been obtained through RTI application dated

01.03.2025 upon which the petitioners gained knowledge of the award being passed by the respondents for acquisition of the subject lands and the said W.A.No.727 of 2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.11.2019. (f) In the above said circumstances, the petitioners made a requisition to the 4th respondent dated 02.06.2025 bringing to the notice of the said respondents the position of the farmers, land owners and affected persons and contraventions of law with regard to the land acquisition proceedings and thereby they requested inter alia immediate intervention to stop acquisition process until just and fair compensation is determined and reassessed by enhancing the compensation amount to minimum of Rs.50,00,000/- (fifty lakhs) per acre in line with prevailing market rate and loss of livelihood. Further several requests have been made to the respondent authorities. However, the said requisition dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the farmers of Gorapudi village and all the requests fell in deaf ears without any consideration. 22 (g) The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned award dated 10.04.2018 was passed by the 5th respondent in complete contravention of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and rules framed there under. No notices have been served on the petitioners to comply with the mandatory requirement and procedure contemplated u/s.21 and 22 of the Act before passing the above said impugned award. There is no proof of service of notice to the petitioners. But it is further evident from the impugned award wherein at every item under the apportionment segment of the impugned award, it is noted that “no claims have been received during award enquiry. There is no possibility of ascertaining for deciding the names of the persons entitled for compensation.” This is the common case with all the affected persons which raises serious doubts regarding the manner and veracity of the impugned land acquisition proceedings and passing of the impugned award. Neither notice of the impugned award nor a copy of the impugned award is given to the petitioners by the respondents. (h) Under the impugned award, the market value of the land was mechanically fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre which was moreover a basic value as on 01.01.2014 for determining the compensation. The said value has been determined by the 5th respondent by merely collecting the data 23 from the local Sub-Registrar’s office regarding sale transactions in the vicinity during the three years preceding the notification u/s.4(1) of the Act i.e., 2011-13. Hence, the same is contrary to Secs.26, 27, 28 and 30 of the Act, 2013. They ought to have determined the market value basing upon the values prevailing as on the date of passing of the award. (i) The respondents applied the multiplier of 1.25 to the market value for rural areas. But as per the Central Government Notification vide S.O.425(E) dated 09.02.2016, the correct multiplier is 2.0 for rural areas in Andhra Pradesh. Under the Schedule of the Act, 2013 also, compensation for land acquired in rural areas is calculated by multiplying the market value of the land by a factor of one to two. As per Rule 17 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Development Plan) Rules 2015 (“the rules”), it is provided that “in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied as per column no.3 of serial no.2 of the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) section 30 of the Act shall be 2.00 (two)”. In addition to the market value, a solatium (additional compensation) of 100% of the market value is also provided. Hence the application of a lower multiplier is contrary to law and adversely affects the entitlement of the petitioners to fair compensation. 24 (j) The petitioners came to know that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.160 of Industries and Commerce (Infra) Department, dated

13.11.2017 at the request of APIIC to issue orders for payment of Rs.20 lakhs per acre excluding tress and structure value as recommended by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and thereby the government approved the proposal and accorded permission the District Collector, Visakhapatnam for payment of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs per acre (including solatium and additional market value) excluding the value of trees & structures as per Sec.24(a) of New L.A. Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) towards the acquisition of patta lands over an extent of 1143.30 Acres (extent notified: 2279.05 acres – Award passed: 1,135.75 acres) in the (6) villages of Rambilli and Atchuthapuram Mandals of Visakhapatnam District including the subject Gorapudi Village for Atchuthapuram Cluster of Visakhapatnam-Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC) subject to the interalia condition that the land losers are not entitled to ask for a reference to Land Acquisition and R&R Authority u/s.64 of the A.P. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and R&R Act, 2013. (k) Further, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam was directed to follow the procedure stipulated in Rule 28(A) of the A.P. State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Rules, 2014 while paying compensation. Neither the petitioners nor the other villagers have been 25 approached by the respondent authorities for determination of the alleged consent amount of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. It is much lower compared to the compensation determined on the actual market value prevailing as on

13.11.2017 under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The said alleged consent amount was also fixed unilaterally by the respondent authorities concerned. The basic market value alone as on 01.02.2025 is around Rs.23,00,000/- to Rs.26,62,000/- per acre in the said village, even though there had been deflation and freezing of the land values in the village. In reality, the market value of in Gorapudi village exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The respondent authorities ought to have determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners as per the prevailing market value of the land in Gorapudi village and the surrounding vicinity/villages where there have been free market transactions taking place. (l) The respondents have further violated the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Act by failing to issue a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for the petitioners and by failing to provide any infrastructural amenities or alternative resettlement arrangements. It is the case of the petitioners that there are multiple displacements. Under the LARR Act, 2013, several critical provisions ensure not just compensation but also comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement of affected persons. The 26 respondent authorities utterly failed in determining just and compensation under the Act, 2013. For generations, the families of the petitioners have been residing in homes built on subject lands and sustaining themselves through agricultural activities cultivating the subject lands by growing essential crops such as paddy, sugarcane, groundnut, vegetables and also maintain coconut plantations. Their families are entirely dependent on agricultural income generated from these lands for their livelihood and survival. In addition to farming, they rear cattle on these lands, which forms a critical part of their subsistence economy. However, the respondent authorities are threatening to forcibly dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands without fairly determining or paying fair and just compensation in accordance with law and without providing the mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) entitlements as required under the Act, 2013.

4. (a) On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter of the 5th respondent submits that the present writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.04/2018 in Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block-11 covered by Sy.Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent. He submits that 27 some of the petitioners filed W.A.No.727 of 2018 against the interim order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017. However the said writ appeal was ultimately dismissed for non prosecution on 25.11.2019. The petitioners have now approached this Hon’ble Court once again by filing the present writ petition raising identical issues arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and attributing the previous lapse to the alleged negligence of their counsel. Such a plea is wholly unsustainable and devoid of merit and this writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches. (b) Coming to the merits of the case, the necessary Preliminary Valuation (P.V.) proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam proposing a rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in accordance with section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 and also seeking permission to pass the Award. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings dated

10.08.2017 approved the proposed rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for the lands in question and directed that further action is to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The total compensation determined under the Act, 2013 was worked as under. Rate as per P.V. Rs. Ps. Amount compensation multiplication factor i.e. 1.25 Rs. Ps. 5,00,000/- 6,25,000/- Solatium 100% Rs. Ps. Addl. Market Value @ 12% from 4(1) Notification (excluding Award court stay period) Rs. Ps. amount Total compensation Rs. Ps. 6,25,000/- 1,18,830/- (2 years 23 days) 13,68,830/- 28 (c) The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APIIC, Hyderabad jointly proposed and requested the Government to issue orders approving the land value for Rs.20 lakhs per acre (inclusive of solatium and Additional Market Value), excluding the value of trees and structures for the lands notified in respect of five villages viz., Gorapudi, Krishnampalem, Z.Chinthuva, Lalamkoduru and Pudimadaka situated in Rambilli and Atchutapuram Mandals under the Visakhapatnam-Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC), Rambilli Cluster. Pursuant thereto, the State Government issued orders G.O.Ms.No.160 dated 13.11.2017 Industries and Commerce (Infra) Dept., fixing the land value at Rs.20,00,000/- per acre and directed that consent awards be passed in favour of the land owners who voluntarily come forward to part with their lands at the approved rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. After publication of the Declaration, notices u/s.21(1), 21(4) and 22 of the 2013 Act were duly published in the locality and served on all interested persons. An award enquiry was conducted on 13.03.2018 at Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal. During the course of enquiry, the ryots/interested persons submitted representations stating that they were not willing to part with their lands and accordingly no individual claims were filed. 29 (d) Despite issuance and receipt of notices under section 37(2) of the 2013 Act, none of the petitioners appeared before the LAO & SDC (LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam for submission of their respective claims over the subject properties. Consequently, the LAO decided to deposit the compensation awarded under the impugned Award before the LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the LAO & SDC(LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam approached the LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam seeking to file a reference under the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 in respect of the lands covered under Phase-1 of the Rambilli VCIC Cluster. The LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam directed submission of certain documentary evidence viz., address proof, photo identification, age proof with signature and a passport size photograph bearing the signature for processing the reference files. In compliance, the LAO made efforts to obtain the said documents from the ryots/interested persons. However, the ryots/interested persons refused to furnish the required documentation. Therefore, it is solely due the petitioners’ failure and non-cooperation the reference proceedings could not be taken forward before the LARR Authority Court. (e) A Grama Sabha was conducted on 19.02.2025 at Rythu Bharosa Kendram, Gorapudi, attended by ryots, wherein they demanded higher compensation and rehabilitation benefits. There was no intention to 30 dispossess ryots and the award pertained only to agricultural lands. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the LAO &SDC (LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam passed Award No.04/2018 before filing W.A.No.727 of

2018. Notices u/s.37(2) were served by registered post. The allegation that the ryots were unaware of the award is incorrect. Notices u/s.15(2) of the Act, 2013 were duly served on all 39 writ petitioners. The Draft Declaration u/s.19(1) was submitted and subsequently approved by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Preliminary Valuation proposals recommending Rs.5,00,000/- per acre were submitted in accordance with section 24(1)(a) of the Act, and the award was duly passed under section 23 of the Act. Notices were issued both prior to and after the passing of the Award to all ryots/interested persons. The entire acquisition process was carried out strictly in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the provisions of the Act, 2013. (f) The impugned Award No.04/2018 was passed only in respect of agricultural lands. The value of trees and structures wherever existing is to be assessed separately and paid in addition to the land value fixed under the award. The petitioners instead of availing the statutory remedy available to them by approaching the LARR Authority established under the Act, 2013, have chosen to file the present writ petition solely to delay the ongoing land acquisition process. The appropriate forum for raising 31 grievances relating to compensation is before the LARR Authority under section 64 of the Act, 2013. (g) As stated above, some of the petitioners already preferred W.A.No.727 of 2018 against the order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated

21.06.2017 wherein an interim order was granted suspending further proceedings in relation to the subject land acquisition. However, the said writ appeal was ultimately dismissed for non prosecution on 25.11.2019. In the counter filed in W.A.No.727 of 2018 it was specifically mentioned that all awards have been passed duly following the norms under the LA Act and as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in W.P.No.10328 of 2008. Therefore the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeal were well aware of the award proceedings being passed. Moreover, the following is the list of the appellants in W.A.No.727 of 2018 who are also arrayed as petitioners in the subject writ petition as under: Sl. No. Name applicant the writ Bl. No. Present WP No. Name of the present W.P. Relation Sl. No. present petition Sl. No. 12

5. Lalam Raghava Rao S/o Ganga Raju Lalam Appala Swamy S/o Appala Konda Lalam Atchiyamma W/o Kannaiah Lalam Appala Konda S/o Nallappanna Lalam Babulu S/o Appanna 5 5 5 5 19328 19 19328 23 19328 24 19328 10 2 19329 Lalam Raghava Rao S/o Ganga Raju Lalam Srinivasa Rao S/o (Late) Appalaswamy Lalam Atchiyamma W/o (Late) Kannaiah Lalam Ramayyamma W/o Appalakonda Lalam Satyavathi W/o (Late) Babulu 3 12 15 19 48 Self Son Self Wife Wife 32 44 19331 48 19331 55 19331 63 19331 76 19331 4 19332 13 19332 14 19332 17 19332 21 19332 22 19332 25 19332 27 19332 32 19332 82 19332 6 19332 11 19332 18 19332 30 19346 31 19346 1 3 8 19348 19348 19348 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 9 9 9 Lekkala Ganga Raju S/o Bangaraiah Nakaraboyina Satyavathi D/o (Late) Ramulu Nakaraboyina Satyavathi D/o (Late) Ramulu Jami Durga Rao S/o Atchanna Nakaraboyina Appaiahmma W/o Ramulu Lalam Leelakantham W/o Appalanaidu Lalam Pothuraju S/o Gangaraju Lalam Mangaraju S/o Gangaraju Lalam Apparao S/o Appalaswamy Rajana Chinnodu S/o Butchulu Lalam Satyarao S/o Pyda Thalli Lalam Apparao S/o Kannaiah Ramulu Lalam Varalamma W/o (Late) Thathalu Lalam Appala Naidu S/o Chinnodu Ruthala Laxmi D/o (Late) Atchibabu Sesetti Appa Rao S/o Venkata Swami Kasireddy Srinivasa Rao S/o Appala Naidu Lalam Nageswara Rao S/o Appala Swamy Ruthala Sankara Rao S/o Thathalu Ruthala Laxmi W/o (Late) Apparao Gorle Satyanarayana S/o Ramaiah Gorle Satyanarayana S/o Ramaiah Gorle Madhusudhana Rao S/o Ramaiah 42 32 32 37 27 Self Daughter in law Daughter in law Self Self 67 Wife 5 6 Self Self 10 Self 14 45 3 15 12 9 61 1 19 1 2 29 29 75 Self Self Self Wife Self Grand Daughter Self Self Self Self Wife Son Self Self

9. Lekkala Ganga Raju S/o Bangaraiah Nakaraboyana Narayana S/o Atchanna Nakanaboyana Sathaiah S/o Atchanna Jami Durga Rao S/o Atchanna

10. Nakanaboyana Appaiahmma W/o Ramulu Lalam Appala Naidu S/o Kondala Rao Lalam Pothu Raju S/o Ganga Raju Lalam Manga Raju S/o Ganga Raju Lalam Appa Rao S/o Appala Swamy

15. Rajana Chinnodu S/o Butchulu Lalam Satya Rao S/o Pyda Thalli Lalam Appa Rao S/o Kannaiah Ramulu Lalam Thathalu S/o Chinnodu

19. Lalam Appala Naidu S/o Chinnodu 20. Ruthala Thathaiah S/o Somulu 21. Sesetti Appa Rao S/o Venkata Swami 22. Kasireddy Srinivasa Rao S/o Appala Naidu Lalam Nageswara Rao S/o Appala Swamy

24. Ruthala Sankara Rao S/o Thathalu

25. Ruthala Apparao S/o Thathalu

26. Gorle Ramaiah S/o Appanna 27. Gorle Satyanarayana S/o Ramaiah 28. Gorle Madhusudhana Rao S/o Ramaiah

30. Lalam Rambabu S/o Pyda Thalli Lalam Demudu S/o Bangaraiah @ Chinnodu 31. Sesetti Apparao S/o Veerapuri 32. Sesetti Appala Raju S/o Veerapuri

33. Gorle Appaji Rao

34. S/o Ramaiah Lalam Thathalu S/o Appanna

35. Vemparala

39. Satyanarayana S/o Kanna Babu Jagarapu Bhavani W/o Satyanarayana Lalam Sreerama Murthy S/o Naraiah Lalam Appala Naidu S/o Veeranna Lalam Rambabu S/o Bangaraiah @ Chinnodu

40. Lalam Srinivasa Rao S/o Bhogesh

41. Gone Atchibabu

43. S/o Appranna Lalam Gangaraju S/o Thellodu Lalam Appala Konda S/o Appala Konda 33 37 19348 56 19348 5 7 9 10 15 16 34 43 45 50 52 58 20 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19352 19353 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Lalam Rambabu S/o Pyda Thalli Lalam Demudu S/o Bangaraiah @ Chinnodu Sesetti Apparao S/o Veerapuri Sesetti Appalaraju S/o Veerapuri Gorle Appaji Rao S/o Ramaiah Lalam Narayanamma W/o (Late) Thatalu Vemparala Satyanarayana S/o Kanna Babu Jagarapu Bhavani W/o Satyanarayana Lalam Sreerama Murthy S/o Naraiah Lalam Papa W/o Appalanaidu Lalam Rambabu S/o Bangaraiah @ Chinnodu Lalam Srinivasa Rao S/o Bhogesh Gorle Ramesh S/o (Late) Atchibabu Lalam Demulamma W/o (Late) Gangaraju Lalam Appala Konda S/o Appala Konda 43 11 2 3 12 67 1 33 31 24 27 16 14 44 39 Self Self Self Self Self Wife Self Self Self Wife Self Self Son Wife Self Therefore it is not true to say that the writ petitioners are not aware of passing of awards in Gorapudi Village.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents relied upon the following decisions: (i) In the matter of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others1, para Nos.4 & 10 are referred as under:

4. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, urged the following contentions: 1 (1997) 1 SCC 134 34 (a) that once a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued with respect to CTS No. 218 as well as CTS No. 211, the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to pass an award with respect to both the pieces of land. He had no jurisdiction or authority not to pass the award in respect of CTS No. 218 on the ground of an alleged settlement reported to him by the person for whose benefit it was being acquired. Until and unless a notification was issued under Section 48 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had no option but to pass an award with respect to both the lands notified. The illegality committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in not passing an award with respect to CTS No. 218 vitiates the award as a whole; it is liable to be struck down even with respect to CTS No. 211. The means transportation,

10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all- round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 indeed any of their the acquisition proceedings 35 discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by to acquisition the courts while dealing with challenges proceedings. (ii) In May George v. Special Tahsildar and others2, para Nos.8, 9 & 10 are referred as under:

8. Land measuring 30.80 acres stood notified and acquired. The land consisted of large survey numbers and belonged to a large number of persons. It is not the case of the appellant that the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 were not published or given publicity as mandatorily required under the law. Once award was made and possession had been taken, land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested even it some irregularity is found in the award. As huge area of land had been acquired for planned development of industrial town, the land of the appellant cannot be exempted on any ground whatsoever. More so, the appellant’s land was of negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired and therefore at the behest of only one person, the acquisition proceedings cannot be disturbed.

9. Admittedly, acquisition proceedings/award have been challenged at a belated stage after a decade of taking possession of facts and circumstances of this case, it is difficult to presume that the appellant had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. in dispute. In

10. While dealing with a similar case, this Court in Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana3, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 532, has held as under: