Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 923 (AP)

Thumu Savitri W/o Ramachandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-08-06

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation for the submersible lands of the petitioner under the Polavaram Project with respect to the land in an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.18/a/Khalsa in Thondipaka, Kukunnuru Mandal, West Godavari District in spite of petitioner’s representation dated 21.09.2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of Thondipaka Village, Kukunnuru Mandal and the petitioner’s husband had an extent of Ac.2.39 cents in Sy.No.18/a/Khalsa in Thondipaka, Kukunnuru Mandal, West Godavari District. By virtue of the registered will deed No.13 of 2013 dated 27.07.2013, he gave an extent of Ac.0.23 cents to his daughter T.Vijayalakshmi and later on after his demise the remaining Ac.2.16 cents was devolved upon the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased Ramachandraiah. Thus, the petitioner is having possession of the land in an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy. No.18/a/Khalsa in Thondipaka, Kukunnuru Mandal, West Godavari District. While so, the government issued notification under Form No.6A, dated 30.09.2016 under Land Acquisition Act for Polavaram Project wherein the lands of the petitioner are also included. The subject land was submerged into the Polavaram Project. In spite of several representations from 2017 onwards, the respondents have not considered the payment of any compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner once again made a representation on 21.09.2019 requesting the authorities to pay compensation, as the neighbors and other farmers in the same survey number were given compensation for their submerged lands. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 3rd respondent submits that the Land Acquisition Officer issued notification dated 30.09.2016 under Land Acquisition act for Polavaram Project for a total extent of Ac.111.14 gts of Khalsa lands. The name of the petitioner Thumu Savitri W/o Ramachandraiah is not figured in the notification of Khalsa lands. In the draft notification issued by the District Collector, erstwhile West Godavari District, Eluru vide Ref.No.E-131451/2016/R&R dated 05.03.2017, the names of the pattadars/ enjoyers for R.S.No.18 Khalsa were furnished as under: S. No. R.S. No. Extent Ac. The name of the petitioner Thumu Savitri W/o Ramachandraiah is not figured in the notification of Khalsa lands. In the draft notification issued by the District Collector, erstwhile West Godavari District, Eluru vide Ref.No.E-131451/2016/R&R dated 05.03.2017, the names of the pattadars/ enjoyers for R.S.No.18 Khalsa were furnished as under: S. No. R.S. No. Extent Ac. Gts Pattadar Enjoyer 1 18 2.39 Thumu Savitramma W/o Venkateswrarao Thumu Savitramma W/o Venkateswararao 2 18 2.10 Thumu Ramachandrayya S/o Roshayya Thumu Satyanarayana S/o Roshayya 3 18 0.19 Thumu Ramachandrayya S/o Roshayya Thota Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Ramesh 5. In the draft award passed by the learned District Collector, erstwhile West Godavari District, Eluru for R.S.No.18 for an extent of Ac.2.10 cents the name of Thumu Ramachandrayya S/o Rosayya was recorded as pattadar against Thumu Satyanarayana S/o Rosayya as enjoyer. After scrutiny of the records Thumu Satyanarayana was recorded as awardee for Ac.2.10 gts in R.S.No.18/A/Khalsa of Thondipaka village and the land compensation amount of Rs.24,23,860/- was paid to him. The payment of land compensation amount of Rs.32,04,882/- was paid to Thumu Savitramma W/o Venkateswararao for an extent of Ac.2.39 gts. As regards to an extent of Ac.0.19 gts in R.S.No.18/a/Khalsa of Thondipaka village, the name of Thumu Ramachandrayya S/o Rosayya was recorded as pattadar against Thota Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Ramesh and the payment of land acquisition for an extent of Ac.0.19 gts could not be paid to either Thumu Ramachandraiah S/o Rosayya or Thota Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Ramesh due to the dispute and non production of the relevant documents by any one of the above said two persons. 6. At this stage, the writ petitioner approached the High Court for payment of land compensation in R.S. No.18/a/Khalsa of Thondipaka village for an extent of Ac.2.16 cents. The writ petitioner submitted representation to the 3rd respondent in the year 2019 after the gap of 3 years after notification. The said representation was made after passing of the award approved by the District Collector on 05.03.2017. Had the petitioner submitted any representation to the 3rd respondent at any stage of the land acquisition, starting from the date of preliminary notification in the year 2016, the 3rd respondent would have taken suitable action on the representation of the petitioner as per the provisions of law. Had the petitioner submitted any representation to the 3rd respondent at any stage of the land acquisition, starting from the date of preliminary notification in the year 2016, the 3rd respondent would have taken suitable action on the representation of the petitioner as per the provisions of law. However, the petitioner made representation as stated above only on 21.09.2019 after passing of the award in respect of the Khalsa land in R.S.No.18/a. Since there is no award passed in the name of the petitioner, the payment of compensation cannot be considered at this stage. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, since there is an award passed by the proceedings of the Collector & District Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru dated 05.03.2017 approving the compensation awarded including all the statutory benefits, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Land Acquisition Officer, Kukkunur Mandal, West Godavari District under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 seeking appropriate relief before the said authority. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.