Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V Shanmugam vs District Magistrate Mau And Ors on 16 December, 2025
APHC010581322023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30008 of 2023
Between:
1. V SHANMUGAM, S/O. LATE VILVANDHAM, HINDU, AGED 56
YEARS, AUTO DRIVER R/O DOOR NO. 32-497/1, NEHRU
STREET, MURUKAMBATTU VILLAGE AND POST,CHITTOOR
2. R. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. LATE V RAMALINGAM, HINDU, EX
SERVICEMEN. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. WORKING AS SBI
GUARD, R/O. D NO. 33, BONDHIYAR, KOVIL STREET,
GNAPATHI NAGAR, SARON, MELATHIKHAN,
THIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMIL NADU
3. V P SURESH, S/O. LATE V PALANI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS. CULTIVATION CUM LORRY DRIVER R/O. D NO. 32-
498, NEHRU STREET, MURUKAMBATTU VILLAGE,
CHITTOOR.
4. V P NITYANANDAM, S/O. V PALANI, HINDU, COOLI, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. D NO.3-320, NEHRU STREET,
MURUKMBATTU VILLAGE, CHITTOOR
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BDGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DIST. CHITTOOR.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
5. CHITTOOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHUDA, OLD
COLLECTORATE, CHITTOOR DIST. REP BY ITS VICE
CHAIRMAN
6. T SUBRAMANYAM S/O T RAJAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC
2
FARMER, R/O D.NO.21-271, D.VENGANAPALLI,
MANGASAMUDRAM RURAL, T.SAVATAPALLI (P),
CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE
COURT'S ORDER DT.12.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.01 OF 2024
...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent in proposing to allot petitioners land in an extent of Ac. 0.81
Vi cents in Sy.No.82/9A and an extent of Ac. 0.81 Vi cents in Sy.No,
82/9B of total Ac.1.63 cents situated at Thimmasamudram Revenue
Village, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor Municipal Corporation and District to
the 5th respondent under the premise that it is a DKT land by ignoring
sale transactions vide sale deeds vide Nos. 2380/1927, 830/1971 and
5221/1977 and without any notice to petitioners and without following
due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of
natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to
interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
above said land in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T JANARDHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. KOMMASANI SRINIVASULA REDDY SC FOR URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES
3. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to handing over the land of the petitioners' land of an extent of Ac.0.81½ cents in Sy.No.82/9A and an extent of Ac.0.81½ cents in Sy.No.82/9B, total admeasuring Ac.1.63 cents, situated at Thimmasamudram Revenue Village to the 5th respondent for development of MIG layout on the ground that the petitioners' father has purchased the land in the year 1977, vide document No.5221/1977 dated 18.06.1977 without following the due procedure hence the petitioners pray to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to dispossess them from the subject land without following due procedure of law.
2. The 6th respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 to implead him as party respondent to the Writ Petition and the same was allowed by this Court on 12.11.2025. The contention of the 6th respondent is that DKT patta was issued in favour of the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent's name was recorded in 1B namuna and the revenue records. The alleged sale deed filed by the petitioners is no way connected with the petitioners' property and the 6th respondent is entitled to receive the compensation. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim orders granted by this Court dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th unofficial respondent would submit that the name of the unofficial respondent has been notified in the proceedings in ROC.No.A/122/2022 dated 08.08.2022 and the 6th respondent is entitled to receive the compensation for the aforesaid survey numbers.
44. Heard Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ashwatha Narayana, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
5. Though the writ petition is filed not to dispossess but the petitioner is seeking a direction to the official respondents to provide compensation to the petitioner according to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act'), as the land was allotted to the 5th respondent by the 2nd respondent for the development of MIG layout belong to them.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.0.81½ cents in Sy.No.82/9A and an extent of Ac.0.81½ cents in Sy.No.82/9B, total admeasuring Ac.1.63 cents, situated at Thimmasamudram Revenue Village purchased the land in the year 1977, vide document No.5221/1977 dated 18.06.1977 and they are entitled to receive the compensation and this Court may direct to pay the compensation to the petitioners, lying with the Joint Collector Chittoor.
7. Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 envisages that, when there is a dispute to whom the compensation is payable the issue has to be referred to and decided by the authority under the Act.
58. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & others Vs District Magistrate Mau and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 787, had held that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court or authority.
9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition on the touchstone of Section 64 of the Act, directing the Joint Collector to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to agitate their respective rights before the authority under Section 64 of the Act. The Joint Collector is further directed not to disburse the amount to either party.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 16.12.2025 Siva/CMK 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.30008 of 2023 Date: 16.12.2025 Siva/CMK