Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sathram Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 April, 2026
APHC010347192022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 20968/2022
Between:
1. SATHRAM NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, OCC - AGRICULTURE, H.NO.9-169, CHALLAVARIGUDEM,
JANGAREDDIGUDEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH-534447
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI,
ANIARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, PIPRMC,
UNIT-II, ELURU, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND (L.A. UNIT
TRANSFERRED FROM RANDR OFFICER CUM LAO AND P.O.,
I.T.D.A., K.R.PURAM)
4. SATRAM LAKSHMANARAO, S/O SESHAIAH, CHALLAVARIGUDEM
H/O TADUVAI VILLAGE OF JANGAREDDIGUDERN MANDAL.
5. SATRAM CHANDRARAO, S/O SESHAIAH, CHALLAVARIGUDEM H/O
TADUVAI VILLAGE OF JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL.
6. SATRAM SURYARAO, S/O SESHAIAH, CHALLAVARIGUDEM H/O
TADUVAI VILLAGE OF JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL.
2
7. SATRAM VENKATRAO, S/O SESHAIAH, CHALLAVARIGUDEM H/O
TADUVAI VILLAGE OF JANGAREDDIGUDEM MANDAL
...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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not referring the matter to competent authority under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 in spite of the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 submitted before the Respondent in connection with the land, in R.S.No.21/2 of Taduvai Village to an extent of Ac.2-44 1/2 cents and not dispossessing of my representation dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 submitted before the Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to pay the compensation individually to the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 to consider my representations dated 16.10.2019, 29.12.2020 and pay the compensation to the Petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 20968/2022 The Court made the following Order:
Heard Smt. Y. Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not referring the application filed by the petitioner to the appropriate forum under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. The petitioner contends that the subject land initially belonged to one Satram Veera Venkaiah, who purchased it through a registered sale deed in 1950. After his lifetime, his two sons, viz., Satram Seshaiah and Satram Veeranna, have succeeded to the same. The petitioner is the son of Satram Veeranna. After the demise of the petitioner's father, i.e., Satram Veeranna, the petitioner succeeded to the property to which his father had received as his share. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had acquired the land for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package of Polavaram Project, vide award dated 18-02-2018. In the said award, the name of the petitioner was not shown, although he had succeeded to the property of late Satram Veeranna. Thus, he made a representation to the authorities seeking payment of compensation for the land of Ac.2.44 cents out of Ac.4.89 cents in R.S.No.21/2. It is contended that despite a series of representations being 4 submitted, the respondents have not issued any orders to resolve the petitioner's grievance.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would submit that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation, having regard to the fact that, the Award was passed in 2018, whereas the application was filed on 16.10.2019, followed by another application, dated 29.12.2020.
5. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents referring to the provisions of Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 submits that the authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, if it is filed beyond the period of limitation under section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act,2013.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, through a memo, had placed before the court a copy of the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 13.03.2018, which is within the period of 30 days from the date of passing of the Award.
7. The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents disputes the said representation stated to have been filed on 13.03.2018 as it does not contain any acknowledgment to establish that it has been filed and received by the appropriate authority.
8. For adjudication of the dispute it is very relevant to extract the provision of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013, which is as follows: 5
"64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made--
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso."6
9. Having regard to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, this Court Suo-
moto impleads the Spl.Collector (Land Acquisition), Rajahmundry as party respondent No.8 to the Writ Petition.
10. Registry is directed to carryout necessary amendments in the cause title of the Writ Petition.
11. Having regard to the discretion that the statute has conferred upon the Collector to condone the delay, this Court is of the view that Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is a beneficial legislation. In such cases, liberal interpretation must be made to the provisions in furtherance of the legislative intention. As it is stated that the petitioner's name has not been reflected in the award, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was aware of the land acquisition proceedings, having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
12. The impleaded respondent No.8 is directed to refer the dispute of the petitioner to the appropriate authority under Section 64 of the Act, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. While referring to the appropriate authority, needless to observe that, in terms of the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Act, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation awarded before the appropriate authority.
13. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 28-04-2026 MSI