Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 138 (AP)

K. Muralidhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-03-05

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI

body2021
ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Since these writ petitions are inter-related and basically pertain to one subject land, this Court deems it appropriate to hear and dispose of them by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri G.B. Sivaji, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing Counsel for Nellore Municipal Corporation, apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. The Municipal Council, Nellore, vide resolution dated 20.3.1994, resolved to acquire an extent of Acs. 0-35.22 cents of land, situated in CAS No. 214 of Venkatrampuram, Nellore Town, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. The petitioners herein acquired the said property from their father, one Sri K. Radhakrishna Reddy, who passed away in the year 1991. 4. In pursuance of the above mentioned Council Resolution dated 20.3.1994, the Municipal Commissioner asked the petitioners to appear before him for negotiations, obviously, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. In response to the said notice, the petitioners herein appeared before the Municipal Commissioner and expressed their willingness for giving the subject land subject to allotment of alternative land of equivalent market value, belonging to Nellore Municipality in lieu of compensation in terms of money. The Municipal Council, Nellore, vide resolution dated 28.6.1996, agreed for allotment of alternative land. But subsequently, the Special Officer, Nellore Municipality, addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Land Acquisition to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which made the petitioners to submit a representation dated 19.11.1995 against the said action. 5. S/Sri K. Syam Sundar Reddy and K. Muralidhar Reddy filed WP No. 22270 of 1996 against the said proposals. The composite High Court in WP MP No. 12751 of 1996 in WP No. 22270 of 1996, passed the following order on 17.10.1996: "Mr. 5. S/Sri K. Syam Sundar Reddy and K. Muralidhar Reddy filed WP No. 22270 of 1996 against the said proposals. The composite High Court in WP MP No. 12751 of 1996 in WP No. 22270 of 1996, passed the following order on 17.10.1996: "Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioners fairly stated before the Court that the petitioners have no objection to give possession of the land, which is required for the purpose of providing approach road to the railway bridge and in respect of which the Municipal Council, Nellore Municipality has also passed appropriate resolution for providing alternative Municipal site by its resolution dated 28.6.1996 and the same has also been forwarded to the Government for its approval. In the light of the above, there shall be stay of all further proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, except to the extent that the respondent-authorities shall be entitled to take possession of the land required for the purpose of approach road, for which the petitioners have no objection as stated above." 6. Vide order dated 11.11.1996, WP No. 22270 of 1996 came to be disposed of by the composite High Court and the operative portion of the said order reads thus: "It is now stated that the Municipal Engineer and the Commissioner In-charge, Nellore Municipality by his proceedings Rc. No. G-1/14151/86, dated 06.11.1996, addressed to the 4th respondent herein i.e., the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration informed of the above interim orders and further stated that the owners of the land (petitioners herein) have handed over the land of an extent about 35-22 cents in the said CAS No. 214 which was required for the formation of the approach road for box type sub-way and possession of the site had been taken over on 5.11.1996 and requested the State Government to pass appropriate orders in the matter for enabling the Municipality to proceed further in the matter. In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that the 4th respondent i.e., the State Government is now seized of the matter with regard to the resolution of the Municipality for allotting alternative site of equivalent market value. In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that the 4th respondent i.e., the State Government is now seized of the matter with regard to the resolution of the Municipality for allotting alternative site of equivalent market value. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have handed over possession of the land in question, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage with a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate orders on the request and resolution passed by the Municipal Council which have been forwarded by the Municipality to the Government. After such orders are passed, it would be open to the land acquisition authorities to pass the award. Accordingly, the State Government is granted three months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for passing appropriate orders on the representation made by Nellore Municipality. With the direction as above, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the interim orders granted by this Court are accordingly modified, giving liberty to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law." 7. In pursuance of the above said orders of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the State Government issued G.O.Rt. No.802 M.A. & U.D. (J2) Department dated 8.10.1997 and the last three paragraphs of the said Government Order read as infra: "The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration in his letter 5th read above, has requested the Government to accord permission to the Municipal Council, Nellore, to exchange the Municipal site in LP No. 66/82, Balajinagar measuring an extent of Acres 1.06 cents for the petitioners' site taken possession of by the Municipality, Nellore, for formation of the approach road to the Box-type Rly., under bridge. The Government hereby accord permission to the Municipal Council, Nellore, to exchange Municipal site in Layout No. 66/82 amounting to a value equal to that of the land taken possession of by the Nellore Municipality for formation of approach road to the Box-type Railway under Bridge. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and the Commissioner, Nellore Municipality are requested to take necessary further action in the matter." 8. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and the Commissioner, Nellore Municipality are requested to take necessary further action in the matter." 8. Subsequently, WP No. 35515 of 1997 came to be filed by Sri Muralidhar Reddy for the following relief: "to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records, relating to order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt. No. 802 M.A. & U.D. (J2) Department dated 8.10.1997 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and direct the 1st respondent to grant permission to the Municipal Council, Nellore to all the sites as approved by the Municipal Council in its Resolution No.1219 dated 28.6.1996 and the proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner, Nellore in ROC No. G1/14151/86 dated 21.7.1996." 9. The composite High Court, vide order dated 25.10.2002, allowed WP No. 35515 of 1997 and the operative portion of the said order is as follows: "Under the above circumstances, the impugned order passed in G.O.Rt. No. 802 dated 8.10.1997 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider and if the 1st respondent is of the opinion that the resolution and the proposals sent by the Municipal Council, Nellore, require modification, the same may be sent back to the Municipal Council with the suggestion or direction of the 1st respondent which could be considered afresh, after giving notice and opportunity to the owners of the land, which was already taken possession from the petitioner and the other owners of the land. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to expedite the matter and take appropriate action and pass orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. If ultimately, the issue could not be settled by way of negotiations, the Municipality is directed to take appropriate proceedings for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs." 10. Assailing the above said order, Nellore Municipality and the State Government filed WA Nos. 1052 of 2004 and 1049 of 2004 and a Division Bench of the composite High Court, by way of an order dated 18.2.2010, dismissed the said appeals and directed the completion of the entire exercise within a period of four months. 11. Thereafter, the Municipal Council, Nellore, vide Resolution No. 88 dated 12.1.2011, allotted three sites, viz., (1) Ac. 1052 of 2004 and 1049 of 2004 and a Division Bench of the composite High Court, by way of an order dated 18.2.2010, dismissed the said appeals and directed the completion of the entire exercise within a period of four months. 11. Thereafter, the Municipal Council, Nellore, vide Resolution No. 88 dated 12.1.2011, allotted three sites, viz., (1) Ac. 0.40 cents in LP No. 70/3, (2) Acs. 1.06 cents in LP No. 66/91 and Ac. 0.36 cents in LP No. 55/95 (Totalling Acs. 1-76.5 cents). On the basis of the said resolution of the Municipal Council, the State Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt. No. 823 M.A. & U.D. (W1) Department dated 29.6.2011, confirming the Resolution No. 88 dated 12.1.2011 of Nellore Municipal Council and allotted alternative sites. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said G.O.Rt. No. 823 dated 29.6.2011 read as under: "Government, after careful examination of the entire matter, have decided to confirm the revised council Resolution No. 88 dated 12.1.2011, to allot alternative site which is of equivalent value of the site acquired from the owners for construction of approach road to Box-type under bridge in Nellore i.e., three pieces of land in LP No. 70/91 to an extent of Ac. 0.040 cents, LP No. 66/82 of Ac. 1.06 cents and LP No. 55/95 of Ac. 0.305 cents totaling Acs. 1.765 cents. Accordingly, the revised council Resolution No. 88 dated 12.1.2011, to allot alternative site which is of equivalent value of the site acquired from the owners for construction of approach road to Box-type under bridge in Nellore i.e., 3 pieces of land in LP No. 70/91 to an extent of Ac. 0.040 cents, LP No. 66/82 of Ac. 1.06 cents and LP No. 55/95 of Ac. 0.305 cents totaling Acs. 1.765 cents, is hereby confirmed. The apportionment among different claimants shall be decided by the Nellore Municipal Corporation, as per law in force, since the Corporation is competent to do so. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nellore, shall take necessary further action." 12. In pursuance of the said orders of the State Government, registered deeds of exchange were entered into on 23.2.2013 between the Nellore Municipal Council on one hand and K. Syam Sundar Reddy and K. Muralidhar Reddy on the other hand. On 23.7.2014, an application was made to the State Government, requesting to grant building permission. 13. In pursuance of the said orders of the State Government, registered deeds of exchange were entered into on 23.2.2013 between the Nellore Municipal Council on one hand and K. Syam Sundar Reddy and K. Muralidhar Reddy on the other hand. On 23.7.2014, an application was made to the State Government, requesting to grant building permission. 13. Subsequently, assailing the inaction on the said application, WP No. 9982 of 2015 was filed by K. Syam Sundar Reddy. The composite High Court, vide orders dated 18.8.2015, disposed of the said writ petition and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.7.2014, and pass appropriate orders, as warranted under law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed." 14. On 19.2.2016, Nellore Municipal Corporation, as per the directions of the State Government, instituted three suits in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore, praying for cancellation of the registered exchange deeds dated 23.2.2013. Subsequently, the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 140 M.A. & U.D. (H1) Department dated 2.6.2016, stating that the Government had no jurisdiction to convert the site reserved for park or playground for some other purpose as per the Supreme Court judgments and eventually, at Paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the said order, the State Government said in the following manner: "5. Finally, in the reference 18th read above, the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation has informed that the officers of Nellore Municipal Corporation inspected the sites alongwith Town Surveyor and identified a Municipal site at Tekkemitta, Nellore, with an extent of Ac. 0.28 cents in CAS No. 527 & 492/2 which is readily available for allotment to the applicant. Further, the proposed site at Tekkemitta is earmarked for residential use as per Approved Master Plan, Nellore and at present in the said site, an old Municipal quarters is existing. 0.28 cents in CAS No. 527 & 492/2 which is readily available for allotment to the applicant. Further, the proposed site at Tekkemitta is earmarked for residential use as per Approved Master Plan, Nellore and at present in the said site, an old Municipal quarters is existing. The present value of the proposed alternate site situated in Tekkemitta is Rs.16,500/- per square yard as per Sub-Registrar valuation certificate dated 28.5.2016 and the value of the applicant's site which was acquired by the Corporation located at Vijayamahal Gate is also Rs.16,500/- as per Sub-Registrar valuation. Hence, the values of both the sites are same and there is no difference. 6. Government, after careful examination, hereby permit the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation to allot the Municipal site at Tekkemitta belonging to Nellore Municipal Corporation with an area of Ac. 0.28 cents in CAS No. 527 & 432/2 to the applicants i.e., Sri A.T. Syam Sundar Reddy, Sri Gopinatha Reddy and Sri K. Murahdhar Reddy duly repealing the earlier orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 823 MA. & UD (W1) Department dated 29.6.2011. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation is further directed to identify the balance land to an extent of Acs. 7.22 cents for allotment immediately. 7 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Nellore, shall take necessary further action accordingly." 15. Subsequently, WP No. 36710 of 2016 came to be filed by Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, questioning G.O.Ms. No.140 M.A. & U.D. dated 2.6.2016 and Memo No.56249/H1/2015 dated 2.6.2016 and for a direction to grant layout permission for the lands allotted through the order of the State Government, vide G.O.Rt. No.823 M.A. & U.D. dated 20.6.2011. The composite High Court on 28.10.2016 passed the following interim order: "This is a case where the petitioner's land has been taken over without issuance of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. BN is clearly admitted. Even as per the G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016, the petitioner was offered to be given land at Tekkemitta of Nellore Municipal Corporation, which is being valued at Rs. 16,500/-. In other words, the rate at which the petitioner is required to be compensated already stands determined at the rate of Rs. BN is clearly admitted. Even as per the G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016, the petitioner was offered to be given land at Tekkemitta of Nellore Municipal Corporation, which is being valued at Rs. 16,500/-. In other words, the rate at which the petitioner is required to be compensated already stands determined at the rate of Rs. 16,500/- It is the case of the petitioner that the land which is now sought to be allotted to the petitioner is of no value and it is not suitable for him in any manner Inasmuch as the petitioner had agreed to take either the value or the suitable land as the present land which is offered being not suitable, no prejudice as such would prima facie case to the respondent-authorities to make the payment in lieu of the land at the rate of Rs. 16,500/- per square yard as equivalent value as per G.O.Ms. No. 140. As it is as matter which has been pending since 1994, it requires to be given a quietus consideration that this is a fit case for referring for mediation. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents shall get instructions on the aspect of referring the matter to mediation, so as to make the petitioner as well as the competent authorities from the respondents to sit across and settle the same." 16. Subsequently, on 19.5.2017, a mediation was conducted in the office of the Municipal Commissioner, Nellore, and in the said meeting, the petitioners refused to accept the land allotted through G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016 and requested to allot any other lands or otherwise to pay compensation as per the latest Land Acquisition Act. 17. On 23.6.2017, the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation addressed a letter to the State Government, stating that there are no other lands available and requested for payment of compensation to the erstwhile lands of the petitioners as per the then market value and prevailing rules in force. 18. 17. On 23.6.2017, the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation addressed a letter to the State Government, stating that there are no other lands available and requested for payment of compensation to the erstwhile lands of the petitioners as per the then market value and prevailing rules in force. 18. Then the State Government issued Memo No. 56249/H1/2015 dated 3.7.2017 which reads as under: "The attention of Director of Country and Town Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur/Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation is invited in the reference 24th cited, Government, after careful examination hereby permit the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, to pay the compensation to the petitioners Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy and Sri K. Syam Sundar Reddy in WP No. 36710 of 2016 as per the then market value and the prevailing rules in force to conclude the long pending issue and to avoid legal complications in the matter. 2. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation shall take necessary action, under intimation to Government as well as Hon'ble A.P. High Court, immediately." 19. Subsequently, Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy instituted WP No. 43813 of 2017, assailing the above said memo dated 3.7.2017. On 22.12.2017, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed the following interim order in the said writ petition: "Notice before admission. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the land of the petitioner was taken in 1996 and exchange deed was also executed and later a G.O. was issued for cancellation of the same and challenging the same the petitioner filed a writ petition and the same is pending. Now, unilaterally the respondents cannot say that they will pay the compensation as per the then market value. Sri A. Panduranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent vehemently opposed the writ petition saying that the earlier writ petition is pending and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. Heard the learned Assistant Government, Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondents 1 to 3. It is to be seen that a reading of the facts narrated in the writ petition goes to show that the respondents are acting arbitrarily. Having executed a registered exchange deed exchanging the property of the petitioner, they realized the mistake and filed suits and also issued G.O. for cancellation of the same and now they cannot again come forward saying that they will pay the then prevailing market value of the land. Having executed a registered exchange deed exchanging the property of the petitioner, they realized the mistake and filed suits and also issued G.O. for cancellation of the same and now they cannot again come forward saying that they will pay the then prevailing market value of the land. A. Panduranga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader seek time for filing counters. Post after six weeks in motion list. Till then, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for." 20. The said interim order was extended until further orders on 7.2.2018. 21. Sri K. Syam Sundar Reddy filed WP No. 46011 of 2018, questioning the action of Nellore Urban Development Authority in calling for tenders for construction and development of parks at Adhithyanagar and Vepadaruvu of Nellore Municipal Corporation Area covered by exchange deed bearing Document No.2113 dated 23.2.2013. This Court on 8.2.2019, granted interim stay of all further proceedings including construction and development pursuant to the new tender notification in ID No. 218508 and Notice No. 14/Eng/NUDA/18-19/EPC. 22. Sri K. Syam Sundar Reddy also filed WP No. 3825 of 2019, questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy. No. 611-B covered by Layout No. 66/82 of Balajinagar, Nellore, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. This Court, by way of an order dated 20.3.1999, while dismissing WP No.3825 of 2019 with costs of Rs.10,000/-, at penultimate paragraph, held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of surrendering of the land. 23. It is also not in dispute that the said order was carried in appeal vide W.A. No. 427 of 2019. The Division Bench, while taking into consideration the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.3.2019 in WP No. 3825 of 2019 would come in the way while deciding WP No. 36710 of 2016, WP No. 43813 of 2017, WP No. 12885 of 2018 and WP No. 46011 of 2018, had set aside the order of the learned single Judge to the extent of declaring that the petitioners would be entitled for compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of surrendering of lands. A copy of the judgment in WA No. 427 of 2019 is placed on record. 24. It is contended by Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Counsel on record for the petitioners that the action of the respondent-Municipal authorities in not finalizing the issue is highly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable besides being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that in view of the conduct of the respondent-authorities, the petitioners, who parted with their valuable property, keeping in view the public interest, are being driven from pillar to post. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the second alternative site shown by the Municipal authorities at Tekkemitta, Municipal quarters are existing and the same also is not acceptable to the petitioners herein. On the contrary, it is vehemently contended by the learned Government Pleader so also Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that having agreed for the exchange of the lands, it is not open now for the petitioners to go back from the same. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that since the land was taken possession of as long back as on 28.10.1996, the compensation cannot be claimed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 30 of 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). 25. In the above background, now, the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court in this batch of writ petitions is "whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?" 26. Right to property is a very valuable right and is also a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which, in equivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 27. In the instant case, the Municipal Council by way of a resolution took a decision to acquire the property of the petitioners obviously by way of negotiations as per Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. 27. In the instant case, the Municipal Council by way of a resolution took a decision to acquire the property of the petitioners obviously by way of negotiations as per Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. It is absolutely not in controversy that it is always open for the authorities to acquire the property either by way of negotiations and with the consent of the land owners or by way of compulsory acquisition by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 0-35.22 cents situated in Sy. No. 1576/2018 in CAS No. 214 of Venkatramapuram, Nellore. It is also not in controversy that pursuant to the order of the composite High Court in WP MP No. 27510 of 1996 in WP No. 22270 of 1996, the respondents took possession of the land from the petitioners for formation of approach road for box type sub-way on 5.11.1996. Though initially, the State Government accorded permission in favour of the Municipal Corporation to grant three bits of alternative lands and even though registered exchange deeds were executed on 23.2.2013 by the Nellore Municipal Corporation, the Nellore Municipal Corporation thereafter, instituted three suits before the Court of District Judge, Nellore, seeking cancellation of the said registered exchange deeds. Subsequently, on the ground that the authorities had no jurisdiction to convert the site reserved for parks and playgrounds for some other purpose, the State Government, vide G.O.Ms. No. 140 M.A. & U.D. Department dated 2.6.2016, repealed the earlier orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 823 M.A. & U.D. Department dated 20.6.2011, wherein permission was accorded for handing over of the alternative lands suggested initially and covered by LP No. 70/91 (Ac. 0.40 cents), LP No. 66/82 (Acs. 1.06 cents) and LP No. 55/95 (Ac. 0.35 cents). Obviously, in view of the arbitrary actions on the part of the respondent-authorities, the petitioners herein are compelled to come to this Court on a number of occasions by way of filing various writ petitions at different intervals. Though the respondents came forward by offering the land admeasuring Ac. 0.28 cents situated at Tekkemitta, Nellore, the petitioners herein did not express their consent for the same. The said land was offered to the petitioners pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016. Though the respondents came forward by offering the land admeasuring Ac. 0.28 cents situated at Tekkemitta, Nellore, the petitioners herein did not express their consent for the same. The said land was offered to the petitioners pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016. The State Government, vide Memo No. 56249/H1/2015 dated 3.7.2017, directed the Municipal Corporation to pay compensation as per the then market value prevailing in the year 2016. The above narration, in clear and manifest terms, discloses that despite lapse of more than 2-1/2 decades, still, the petitioners are being driven out from the pillar to post. It is not in dispute that the respondents are empowered to acquire the private lands by way of negotiations also, but the same cannot be in a unilateral manner and without the consent of the land owners. In the instant case, though the authorities offered alternative land pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2017, the petitioners herein did not express their consent for the same, as such, the petitioners herein cannot be compelled to agree to the said request. 28. In fact, questioning G.O.Ms.No.140, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (H1) Department, dated 2.6.2016, petitioners instituted WP No. 36710 of 2016. It is significant to note that when Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy approached this Court by way of filing WP No. 35515 of 1997, questioning G.O.Rt. No. 802, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (J2) Department, dated 8.10.1997, the composite High Court, vide order dated 25.10.2002, allowed the writ petition and, while setting aside G.O.Rt. No. 802 dated 8.10.1997, directed the State Government to reconsider the issue leaving it open for the State Government to send back the resolution and the proposals sent by the Municipal Council, Nellore, for modification with any suggestions. The composite High Court in the said order, also observed that if the issue could not be settled by way of negotiations, the Municipality should take appropriate proceedings for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. The Municipality and the State filed WA Nos. 1052 of 2004 and 1049 of 2004 and a Division Bench of the composite High Court, vide order dated 18.2.2010, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals, while directing that the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the said date. Despite the same, no finality could be reached in the matter till date. 1052 of 2004 and 1049 of 2004 and a Division Bench of the composite High Court, vide order dated 18.2.2010, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals, while directing that the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the said date. Despite the same, no finality could be reached in the matter till date. It is also to be noted that the petitioners herein are not in favour of accepting the second offer shown by the respondents vide G.O.Ms. No. 140 dated 2.6.2016. It is also clear from the pleadings available on record that no other lands are also available within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Nellore District. 29. With regard to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel as to the applicability of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013, it is to be noted that Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force with effect from 1.1.2014. Having regard to the provisions of the said legislation, in general and Section 24 of the Act in particular, the contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the only alternative left to the authorities is the payment of compensation to the petitioners herein for the subject lands in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to have a quietus for the entire litigation, the said course of action is highly reasonable to be adopted by the respondents herein. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents herein to press into service provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 30 of 2013 and to fix compensation payable to the petitioners and pay the same. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 32. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these cases shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs of the writ petitions.