ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON T. CHENGAIAH AND 60 OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND 4 ORS.

AMARAVATI, India, June 10 -- Andhra Pradesh High Court issued the following order on May 11:

1. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.Prakasam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.205 of 2014; Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.259 of 2014; Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition in W.A.No.848 of 2022; Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.26568 of 2014 and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the Writ Appeals.

2. W.A.No.205 of 2014 has been filed by M/s.Sri City Private Limited, Chennai through its Managing Director (respondent No.8 in W.P.No.23208 of 2010). W.A.No.259 of 2014 has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and its Chairman (APIICL) (respondent Nos.5 & 6 in W.P.No.23208 of 2010). W.A.No.848 of 2022 has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) and its authorities (respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.23208 of 2010). All the aforesaid writ appeals have been filed challenging the judgment/order dated 04.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 filed by the writ petitioners(respondents in the writ appeals).

3. W.P.No.26568 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioners, (other than the writ petitioners of W.P.No.23208 of 2010) challenging the order dated 26.07.2007 of resumption of land to set aside the same and interalia seeking direction to the State authorities to resort to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the L.A. Act, 1894') in case of such requirement for public purpose.

4. The writ petition No.26568 of 2014 has been filed with the delay of almost seven (07) years submitting the explanation that, after the order in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 they came to know about the memo filed by the Revenue authorities in W.P.No.23208 of 2010, clarifying the nature of the rights of the writ petitioners in their land, being non-alienable.

5. Learned counsels submit that W.P.No.26568 of 2014 involves similar facts and the issues as in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and against which the Writ Appeals have been filed.

6. The private respondents in the writ appeals will be referred as the petitioners/writ petitioners and the writ appellants as the appellants/writ appellants.

7. We have considered the counter affidavits, Memos filed by either side, brief submissions and the entire material on record.

I. Facts:

8. Briefly stated, the writ petitioners claim that they were displaced from their land at Sriharikota, which were acquired for establishing a Rocket Launching Station (RLS). They were given compensation amount and the rehabilitation facilities by granting land situated in Tondur Village. The State of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Industries and Commerce Department dated 02.11.1970 ('G.O.Ms.No.1024') for that purpose.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9bry4ZYdmdt3skaivQYLn5Iwc327LXaHZowJO1fc%2FLJX&caseno=WP/26568/2014&cCode=1&cino=APHC010710572014&state_code=2&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.