Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Kuppamma vs The State Of Ap on 4 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.A.No.113 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
04.09.2025 RNT,J & MRK,J
Smt.M.Kuppamma is the writ appellant.
She filed the Writ Petition No.19799 of 2024
against the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 for a
direction to pay the compensation as per the provisions of The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short „Act 30 of 2013‟), in respect of lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in Sy.No.1/2 and an extent of Ac.2.84 cents in Sy.No.2/1 of Appaiahpalem Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupati District.
2. The grievance raised was that despite the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Tahsildar after enquiry, upholding the DKT pattas of the writ appellant, the compensation was not being paid for the land aforesaid acquired under Special Economic Zone Act (in short „SEZ Act‟).
3. In W.P.No.19799 of 2024 instructions was provided by the Revenue Divisional Officer (in short „RDO‟), Sullurpet, which were taken on record by the Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, according to which on the point, "payment made or not", in Sl.No.3(g), it was mentioned that " the payment has already been made to the husband 2 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE of Smt.T.Manjula in Sy.No.2/1 to an extent of Ac.2.84 cents and to Smt.K.Chengamma in Sy.No.1/2 to an extent of Ac.1.41 cents." Time was granted to obtain instructions to the writ appellant and on 24.10.2024 on behalf of the writ appellant it was submitted that neither the writ appellant Smt.M.Kuppamma nor Smt.T.Manjula or Smt.K.Chengamma had received any compensation, and the RDO had tried to mislead the Court by furnishing incorrect instructions. By the same order dated 24.10.2024, the RDO was directed to furnish proof evidencing the payment of compensation to Smt.T.Manjula and to Smt.K.Chengamma. On 14.11.2024, further time was granted to learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. The docket order dated 12.12.2024 records that the various written instructions furnished by the official respondents were in variations. Time was granted to obtain clear instructions directing the appearance of the RDO and the Tahsildar.
4. In the writ petition the RDO filed counter affidavit and inter-alia in para 3(e)(vii) thereof it was submitted that aggrieved by the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 27.01.2024, Smt.T.Manjula, filed an appeal before the RDO in which subsequently notice was issued on 03.12.2024 to the appellant to appear before the enquiry.
5. In W.P.No.19799 of 2024 Smt.T.Manjula 3 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 for her impleadment as respondent No.5, inter-alia submitting that she preferred appeal before the RDO, which was pending for adjudication. She also filed an application seeking to stay the payments or disbursement of the compensation amount to the writ appellant, pending the disposal of the appeal. The copy of the same has been brought on record vide memo dated 03.09.2025 by the 5th respondent herein.
6. The learned Single Judge taking note of I.A.No.2 of 2024 and the pendency of the appeal against the order of Tahsildar dated 27.01.2024, based upon which, the writ appellant prayed to pay the compensation to her, dismissed the writ petition observing that "so long as the appeal against the order of Tahsildar, dated 27.01.2024 is pending before RDO, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition. This Court is of the opinion that until the RDO finally passes the order in appeal, finally deciding the entitlement of land or the compensation for each of the parties, mandamus of this nature cannot be granted."
7. Challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 in W.P.No.19799 of 2024, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
8. Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that DKT patta dated 26.08.1986 was granted to the writ appellant for two items of properties i.e., Ac.2.84 cents in 4 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE Sy.No.2/1 and Ac.1.41 cents in Sy.No.1/2. The appellant‟s name was recorded. Inspite of the patta, the Tahsildar started interfering with the possession of the writ appellant. She then filed W.P.No.17238 of 2007, which was disposed of by an order dated 13.09.2007 at the stage of admission, directing the respondents not to dispossess the appellant from her lands without following due process of law. He further submits that the compensation was sought to be paid to the third parties. The appellant then filed W.P.No.13092 of 2008, for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation. It is evident that the patta in favour of the appellant was cancelled, in view of violation of condition no.2 of DKT patta, and patta to the extent of Ac. 2.84 cents in Sy.No.2/1 was granted in favour of respondent no.3- Smt. T.Manjula. The appellant amended the writ petition so as to challenge the proceedings of cancellation of patta and grant of fresh patta in favour of Smt.T.Manjula. This Court set aside the orders impugned in W.P.No.13092 of 2008 but kept it open for the official respondents to initiate proceedings strictly in accordance with law within a specified time, providing further that if any such proceedings were not initiated within the specified time, the amount of ex-gratia shall be paid to the appellant and till that time the amount shall remain with the authorities. The writ petition was thus allowed on 5 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE 10.12.2013.
9. The DKT patta in favour of the appellant was again cancelled on 22.01.2014. Challenging the said order W.P.No.7245 of 2014 was filed and also for the prayer to pay ex-gratia to the appellant for the lands in Sy.Nos.1/2 and 2/1 to the extent aforesaid. This Writ petition was allowed in part in the following terms:
"Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed in part with regard to an extent of Ac.1-42 cents in sy.No.1/2 of Appaiahpalem village, directing the respondents to conduct a de novo enquiry about the alleged violations after giving a clear notice to the appellant of the alleged violation, her reply should be sought. It is also directed that notice should be personally served on the writ appellant and not by affixture or such other methods. The address of the appellant is available in the records. Any material on which the respondents seek to rely upon should be gathered in the presence of the writ appellant or her authorized representative only. A reasoned order should also be passed in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. In W.P.No.7245 of 2014, so far as the extent of the land measuring Ac. 2.84 cents is concerned, the learned Single Judge clearly observed in para 6 that:
"As far as the extent of land measuring Ac.2-84 cents is concerned, this Court notices that in the enquiry held before the Tahsildar, Smt.T.Manjula also appeared. She agreed that she has purchased the land measuring Ac.2-84 cents in Sy.No.2/1 from the writ appellant by a document dated 09.08.1993. She was also given a patta on 31.01.2004 and later the same was cancelled. The fact remains that she proved her possession by producing the document dated 09.08.1993, electricity bill, house tax receipts etc. It is also clear that the witnesses to the unregistered document were also examined. Therefore, as far as this extent of land is concerned there was material in the opinion of this Court for the Tahsildar to come to the conclusion that the writ appellant has alienated the same. The standard in 6 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE proof in such matters is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt."
11. Consequently, the Writ Petition No.7245 of 2014 was allowed in part only with regard to an extent of Ac. 1.42 cents in Sy.No.1/2 directing respondents to conduct de novo enquiry as per the directions issued as quoted above.
12. The appellant filed W.A.No.570 of 2023, which was disposed of by a judgment dated 13.12.2023 in the following terms:
"Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry as to whether the appellant is entitled for reassignment of the land or whether the purchaser is entitled to reassignment or whether the State may resume the land on account of violation of the condition of non alienation. The said exercise to be conducted after due notice and opportunity being given to the appellant and the person who is said to have purchase the land from the appellant. As far as the remaining Ac.1.41 cents of land is concerned, the directions of the learned Single Judge in this regard are affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs."
13. Thus, in W.A.No.57 of 2023 with respect to Ac. 2.84 cents in Sy.No. 2/1 the direction was issued as quoted above and the direction with respect to remaining Ac. 1.42 cents as given by learned Single Judge was affirmed.
14. It is thereafter that the Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar pass the order dated 27.01.2024 holding that the appellant Smt. M.Kuppama is the rightful pattadar of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.41 cents in Sy.No. 1/2. With 7 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE respect to Ac. 2.84 cents in Sy.No. 2/1 the Tahsildar held that the appellant Smt. M.Kuppama was entitled to receive compensation in respect of that land as well. Based on the order of Tahsildar dated 27.01.2024, W.P.No.19799 of 2024 was filed which as stated above was dismissed on the ground that against the order of Tahsildar the Appeal was filed by Smt.T.Manjula and during pendency of the appeal the writ of mandamus could not be issued.
15. So far as the filing of appeal by the present respondent No.5 Smt.T.Majula is concerned, prima facie it appears that same was filed during pendency of writ petition which has been decided by RDO by order dated 01.07.2025, after the decision in writ petition and during pendency of present writ appeal.
16. Another appeal was also said to have been filed by the present Respondent No.6 Smt.K.Chengamma and the same has also been decided by the RDO by a common judgement dated 01.07.2025.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant disputes filling of the appeal by the respondent No.6. He submits that, that was only at the instance of RDO. The copy of the appellate order passed by RDO has been brought on record. Both the appeals, one by repsondent No.5 and other by respondent No.6 have been dismissed, finding 8 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE no merit in those appeals by RDO.
18. The RDO has however also observed in it‟s appellate judgment that "as far as the lands in Sy.Nos.1/2 and 2/1 of Appaiahpalem Village are concerned, the assignment patta granted in the name of Smt.M.Kuppamma is subsisting as on today as per the orders in W.P.No.13092/2008. The subsequent resumption orders dated 22.01.2014 issued by the Tahsildar, Satyavedu were also set aside by the Hon‟ble Court with a direction to conduct de nova enquiry vide order dated 16.03.2023 in W.P.No.7245/2014. In view of the said direction in W.P.No.7245/2014 and Writ Appeal No.570/2023 the then Tahsildar, Satyavedu passed orders vide Roc.A/20/2024, dated 27.01.2024 it is observed that the then Tahsildar, Satyavedu has considered only the entries made in the Adangals as on 2008 and not enquired about ground reality at the time of issuance of orders, it is entirely different and inconsistent with the Assignment rules. Hence, the present Tahsildar, Satyavedu is directed to review the orders issued by the then Tahsildar and submit the same to this office."
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the appeals were dismissed and it was clearly held that the patta granted in favour of the appellant was subsisting as on today there is no occasion now, not to pay the compensation to the appellant and in view of such finding this 9 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE court may consider to pass the orders for payment of compensation in this appeal itself.
20. On consideration of aforesaid factual aspects, we are of the view prima facie, at this stage, that writ petition was dismissed only on the ground of the pendency of the appeal before the RDO against the order of Tahsildar dated 27.01.2024. Now that appeal has been dismissed. One more alleged appeal of respondent no.6 herein, has also been dismissed. However, in view of the said development taking place during pendency of this appeal, we would hear both the sides on the next date, keeping in view the long previous history of many rounds of litigation but before that, the official respondents shall file an affidavit, on the following points:
i) the payment of compensation for the land in Sy.No.2/1 to an extent of Ac.2.84 cents and the land in Sy.No.1/2 to an extent of Ac.1.41 cents has been made or not ? and if it has been made as was the instructions provided in the writ petition, by RDO which was taken on record, to whom it has been made? and in such a case to bring on record the proof of such payment.
ii) It shall also be open for the parties to explain that, once the appeals of respondent Nos.5 & 6 were dismissed and the finding was recorded that the patta granted in the name of the appellant is subsisting as on today, the 10 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE jurisdiction/justification for the direction of the RDO to the Tahsildar, to review its order dated 27.01.2024 and to submit the same before the RDO?
iii) Considering all the docket orders passed by the learned Single Judge including the one that, various instructions provided were in variation, as also the docket orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in the present appeal raising certain apprehension as per the orders dated 05.05.2025, in the light of the submissions advanced, as also in the order dated 07.07.2025, it shall now be clearly stated in the affidavit to be filed as to why the instructions at variance were provided; and by whom; if by RDO, Sullurpet, with respect to such instructions, the RDO shall file his personal affidavit, explaining such conduct.
21. Respondent No.2 - The District Collector, Tirupati is also directed to file his affidavit in the matter including on the aforesaid points.
22. The record of the appeal/representation filed by respondent No.6 along with the inward register and the appeal register with respect to that appeal shall also be placed before this Court as was previously directed by a co-ordinate Bench on 07.07.2025.
23. It has been submitted by learned Government Pleader that on previous dates some record was submitted by RDO in a sealed 11 SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE cover.
24. If it is so, the Registry shall make available that record on the next date, in the Court.
25. Post on 18.09.2025.
______ RNT,J ______ MRK,J AG