Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nadimpalli Revant Kumar Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 November, 2025
Reserved on : 05.11.2025
Pronounced on : 12.11.2025
Uploaded on : 17.11.2025
APHC010417972023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION N
No. 21384/2023
BETWEEN:
1. NADIMPALLI REVANT KUMAR RAJU, S/
S/o. LATE NADIMPALLI
RAMANJANEYA RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O
D.NO.1405 PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE ANANDAPURAM MANDAL
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION)
VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR RBANDLA, THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH
4. THE COMPETENT
ENT AUTHORITY CUM SPECIAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR RB AND LA, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
HIGHWAYS-16,
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH
6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, DELHI,
INDIA
2
7. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
AUTHORITIES OF INDIA, ENCLAVE, HANUMANTHAVAKA,
VISAKHAPATNAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High
Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction
more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare
the action of the Respondents particularly the 4' Respondent in
determining the compensation for the land acquired to an extent of
Ac.1.60Cents in Sy.No.62-9 of Gudilova Village, Anandhapuram
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under Section 3G(1)of NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS ACT,1956 without issuing notice u/s 3G(3) of NATIONAL
HIGHWAYS ACT,1956 and without following procedure as laid in
Section 3G(4) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT,1956 and without
serving the orders under section 3G(1) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
ACT,1956 to Petitioner and not paying compensation as per market
value fixed and paid to the adjacent land owner in the same Survey
Number @ Rs 60 Lakhs per Acre vide Proceedings of 3rd Respondent
dated 23-7-2021 as illegal, non-est, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure
as laid down under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT,1956 and violative
of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently
direct the Respondents particularly the 4th Respondent to determine
the compensation as per market value fixed and paid to the adjacent
land owner in the same Survey Number @ Rs 60 Lakhs per Acre vide
Proceedings of 3rd Respondent dated 23-7-2021 by following the
procedure as laid down in Section 3G of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
ACT,1956 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND
SOLICITORS LAW FIRM
2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
......to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents particularly the 4th Respondent in determining the compensation for the land acquired to an extent of Ac.1.60 Cents in Sy.No.62.9 of Gudilova Village, Anandhapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District under Section 3G(1) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 without issuing notice u/s 3G(3) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 and without following procedure as laid in Section 3G(4) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 and without serving the orders under section 3G(1) of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 to Petitioner and not paying compensation as per market value fixed and paid to the adjacent land owner in the same Survey Number @ Rs.60 Lakhs per Acre vide Proceedings of 3rd Respondent dated 23.7.2021, as illegal, non-est, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure as laid down under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly the 4th Respondent to determine the compensation as per market value fixed and paid to the adjacent land owner in the same Survey Number @ Rs.60 Lakhs per Acre vide Proceedings of 3rd Respondent dated 23.07.2021 by following 4 the procedure as laid down in Section 3G of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 and pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .....
2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation rather than ex-gratia payment.
3. The petitioner's father was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in survey No.62, Gudilova village of Andapuram Mandal vide D-Form Patta issued in the year 1980 after carving it out from a total extent of Ac.25.20 cents. Later, the survey No.62 was subdivided in the names of the patta holders and the said Survey number 62 was classified as 62/9 of Gudilova village of Andapuram Mandal & Village. The extent of Ac.1.60 cents belongs to the petitioner in survey No.62/9 was acquired for the purpose of laying national highway 16 road.
4. The Writ Petitioner herein along with others filed W.P. No.12817 of 2022 seeking a direction for compensation related to the acquisition of land. At the request of the 4th respondent who is the competent authority-cum-Special Deputy Collector (RB and LA), National Highways, the petitioner has withdrawn the Writ Petition. Following this, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs.87,67,851/- calculating the market value at Rs.21,00,000/- per acre, as compensation for the petitioner's land measuring Ac.1.60 cents on 21.04.2023. 5
5. Now the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation rather than ex gratia, placing reliance on the judgment of the larger Bench in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and others v. Mekala Pandu and others1.
6. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioner that he is entitled for compensation rather than the payment of ex gratia. Petitioner claims that the respondent authorities have breached the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, which amounts to a violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to determine the compensation as per the market value fixed and paid to the adjacent land owners in the same vicinity, at the rate of Rs.60,00,000/- per acre, as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 23.07.2021, and by following the procedure outlined in Section 3(G) of the Act.
7. Additionally, it is stated that a similar writ petition was filed by T. Rajeswar Rao vide W.P. No. 1708 of 2019, wherein this Court issued an interim order on 24.04.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019, directing the respondent authorities to pay compensation rather than ex gratia 1 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) 6 payment. As a result, the respondent authorities disbursed compensation to the claimants in that case.
8. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to compensation instead of ex gratia payment, in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench, and since the petitioner's land is situated abutting the National Highway, as stated in the counter filed by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel urged this Court to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation instead of ex gratia payment.
9. Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 draws the attention of the Court to para No.20 of the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent and stated that the petitioner has to approach Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act, appointed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable for the relief claimed by the petitioner.
10. Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy for petitioner and Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 7 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
11. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that as held by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Mekala Pandu's case (supra 1), the right of an assignee to any compensation will have to be determined in accordance with the conditions in patta itself and where the State does not resort to the covenant of the grant and resorts to the Land Acquisition Act, the assignee shall be entitled to compensation in terms of the land acquisition, specifically in terms of Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (RFCTLARR) as owner and pattadar of the property. Not as an ex gratia payment. Therefore, it is argued that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay compensation rather than ex gratia payment.
12. A Larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu's case (supra1) considered the issue and held "that the assignees of Government land are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant of patta and though such resumption is for a public purpose. It is further held that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and 8 resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is further held that the condition incorporated in the patta denying compensation or restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation is unconstitutional and infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 and 31A of the Constitution and where deprivation of property leads to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 would spring into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the said Article also. It declared that no such condition incorporated in patta / deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land."
13. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel is well settled and no longer res integra. The Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that assignees are entitled to compensation rather than the payment of ex gratia. This Court in W.P. No.16739 of 2020 vide order dated 24.09.2021 in the similar circumstances held that the property was assigned to the assignees and they become absolute owners of the property and directed to pay the compensation relying on the judgment of Mekala Pandu's case 9 (supra 1). The petitioner herein is also entitled compensation rather than ex gratia payment. Hence, this Court holds that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation rather than the payment of ex gratia, in accordance with the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
14. The learned senior counsel Sri O. Manoher Reddy in reply to the query raised by the counsel for the 7th respondent-NHAI, stated that there has been no award passed as required under Section 3G (1) (2) of the National Highways Act 1956, which would allow for arbitration regarding determination of compensation. The authorities have provided an ex gratia payment, and no award has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act 1956. Therefore, the argument presented by the 7th respondent to seek arbitration under Section 3G (5) of the Act is unfounded.
15. To determine the award certain parameters have been stipulated in Section 28 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and it imperative to extract to answer that it is countenanced by the respondent No.7 NHAI:
28. Parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of award.- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded 10 for land acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into consideration:
Firstly, the market value as determined under section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules;
Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
Fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change;11
Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land; and Seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families.
16. As rightly contended by learned senior counsel, no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under the National Highways Act 1956. The ex gratia proceedings cannot be taken as the amount as determined under Section 3G (1) (2) of the National Highways Act 1956, so as to invoke or to proceed before the arbitrator for determination of compensation under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act 1956. The parameters that contained in Section 28 of the Act has not been followed while determining the compensation, hence, the ex gratia amount fixed cannot be treated as compensation, so as to direct the petitioner to approach the arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act 1956.
17. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and fixing of ex gratia payable to petitioner at Rs.21.00 lakhs per acre is untenable and the 4th respondent is directed to compute the compensation payable to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the decision in Mekala Pandu's 12 case (supra 1) by applying the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay the compensation to the petitioner as per market value with all benefits (after deducting the compensation already paid to the petitioner) as payable to owners of such land, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 12.11.2025 Harin 13 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T ARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 21384 OF 2023 Date: 12.11.2025 Harin