Judgement Regarding Land Acquisition Act not Applicable to Encroachers.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION Nos.16316, 16999, 17291, 17335, 21257 of 2020, 19431,
22273, 22281 of 2021, 3889 of 2022 and CC.Nos.4939 and 4941 of 2023
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 16316/2020
%27.01.2026
Between:
1.THOTA VENKATADRI, S/o.T. Chinna Basavaiah, aged about 71 yaers,
R/o.D.No.49-1-35, Beside Sivalayam, Gunadala, Vijayawada, 1st
New
Assessment No.1073145340, 2nd
New Assessment No.1073145339 and
others
...PETITIONERs
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT,
MACHILIPATNAM,
3.VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
COMMISSIONER,VIJAYAWADA,
4.THE TAHSILDAR, VIJAYAWADA, NORTH,
5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT,
VIJAYAWADA, KRIAHNA DISTRICT.
6.THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERCUMSUBCOLLECTOR,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.20.09.2023, VIDE ORDER
PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2023.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioners: VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
Counsel for Respondents :
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2004 (2) ALD 451
2. WP.No.43730 of 2016 and batch, decided on 21.03.2025
This Court made the following:
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
3.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC

2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRESENT
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 16316/2020
%27.01.2026
Between:
1.THOTA VENKATADRI, S/o.T. Chinna Basavaiah, aged about 71 yaers,
R/o.D.No.49-1-35, Beside Sivalayam, Gunadala, Vijayawada, 1st
New
Assessment No.1073145340, 2nd
New Assessment No.1073145339 and
others
...PETITIONERs
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT,
MACHILIPATNAM,
3.VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
COMMISSIONER,VIJAYAWADA,
4.THE TAHSILDAR, VIJAYAWADA, NORTH,
5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT,
VIJAYAWADA, KRIAHNA DISTRICT.
6.THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERCUMSUBCOLLECTOR,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.20.09.2023, VIDE ORDER
PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2023.
...RESPONDENT(S):
DATE OF COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED: 27.01.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N

3
APHC010248222020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3457]
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
WP.No.16316/2020
Between:
Thota Venkatadri ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
WP.No.16999/2020
Between:
Smt. Kota Rajeswari, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VINEETH APPASANI
2.VENKAT SAILENDRA G
1.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.17291/2020
Between:
Sri Kolli Joy Nikhil Raj, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

4
2.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.17335/2020
Between:
Sri Jetti Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER
AND
1.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.21257/2020
Between:
Sri Pavuluri Bharadwaj, ...PETITIONER
AND
1.RAMINENI SATISH BABU
1.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.19431/2021
Between:
Sri Vallabhaneni Saroja, ...PETITIONER
AND
2.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.22273/2021
Between:
Sri Chelamkuri Nagaraju, ...PETITIONER
AND

5
2.GP FOR REVENUE
3.M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP )
WP.No.22281/2021
Between:
Sri Vadranapu Venkateswara Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
1.GP FOR REVENUE
WP.No.3889/2022
Between:
Jetti Siva and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VENKAT SAILENDRA G
1.GP FOR REVENUE
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4939/2023
Between:
Sri Jetti Satyanarayana, ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Swapnil Dinkar Ias ...CONTEMNOR
Counsel for the Contemnor:
CONTEMPT CASE No.4941/2023
Between:
Sri Kolli Joy Nikhil Raj, ...PETITIONER
AND
Sri Swapnil Dinkar Ias ...CONTEMNOR

6
Counsel for the Contemnor:
The Court made the following:

7
COMMON ORDER:
1. All the petitioners are residents of the Gunadala area, Vijayawada and
have filed a batch of writ petitions seeking to declare the proceedings
dated 04.07.2023 issued by the respondent authority rejecting the
request of the writ petitioners for the grant of compensation under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The petitioners are also seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners are also seeking payment
of compensation in terms of Act, 30 of 2013. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent
residents of the Gunadala area in Sy.No.284/4 and that they acquired
the property through their ancestors. It is submitted that some of the
petitioners’ forefathers have been living there for about 100 years or
more.
3. It is also submitted that the Gunadala area was originally a
Grampanchayat, which was merged into the Vijayawada Municipal
Corporation in the year 1981. Thereafter, the petitioners' property was
assessed for taxes, and they regularly paid the property tax. Prior to

8
paying property tax to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the
petitioners had been paying it to the Gram Panchayat.
4. As things stood, the respondent corporation intended to acquire the
property for the construction of a railway over bridge (ROB), and the
petitioners were informed that they were in occupation of government
land and required to evict from the said land. The petitioners submitted
representations to the respondent authorities, duly informing them that
the petitioners are landless poor people residing on the said land and
eking out their livelihood by running shops there. Evicting them from
their property would deprive the petitioners of their livelihood.
5. It is submitted that the petitioners are not against construction of the
ROB, however, the respondents ought to have considered the
longstanding possession of the petitioners over the property since time
immemorial, the only way the petitioners could be evicted from the said
property is by acquiring the property of the petitioners by invoking the
6. This Court, vide order dated 14.09.2020, directed the respondent
authorities to follow due process of law. The primary contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the
possessors of the property and residing in the said property since time
immemorial. Section 3(n) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

9
2013 would define holding of land as the total land held by a person as
an owner, occupant or tenant or otherwise. The petitioners claim to
have acquired the property from their ancestors, and they are also
paying taxes as assessed by the respondent authorities. The petitioners
are also issued electricity and municipal water connections, as such, the
occupation of land by the petitioners cannot be considered as
encroachment or illegal occupation.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this
Court in LAO-Cum-RDO Vs. Mekala Pandu and others1
. It is
submitted that the encroachers are also entitled to the issuance of a
notice, and the respondents are under a moral, legal, and social
obligation to follow due process of law in evicting any encroacher.
8. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot be considered as
encroachers on account of the petitioners' continuous, uninterrupted
and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the property for more
than the last 100 years. It is submitted that the respondents are
obligated to, in essence, follow the Right to Fair Compensation and
2013, for taking over the property of the petitioners.
9. The respondent No. 3 has filed a detailed counter, and the learned
standing counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently disputes the
petitioners' claim of ownership over the property. It is submitted that the
1
2004 (2) ALD 451

10
petitioners have, so far, not produced any title document, deed, or order
that entitles them to claim ownership. It is submitted that some of the
petitioners claim to have purchased the property by way of an
unregistered agreement of sale.
10. It is submitted that the assessment of the property for tax and the
payment of the said tax would not confer any valid, legal, or transferable
title. So, also, payment of electricity and municipal water bills does not
confer any exclusive right of title. It is submitted that the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, cannot be invoked for
evicting the encroachers.
11. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities, in compliance with
the interim orders dated 14.09.2020, have issued notices to all
concerned for evicting them. It is also submitted that the necessity for
the construction of a railway over bridge was necessitated to ease the
growing traffic in Vijayawada. The said project is undertaken in the
public interest and for public use.
12. The property occupied by the petitioners is Government poramboke
land, and none of the petitioners were granted any patta certificates to
claim any legal right over the same. It is also submitted that, on
humanitarian grounds, the respondent corporation offered housing to
the evacuees.

11
13. The respondent No.4 has also filed a counter, and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the state submits that the process of
acquisition of land for the construction of the ROB was completed, and
an award was passed on 23.02.2015. It is submitted that compensation
was paid in accordance with the applicable law to all those eligible
property owners whose property was acquired for public purposes.
14. It is submitted that the Government poramboke land in RS.No.248/4
and 248/2 is classified as canal land, and a portion of land in
RS.No.247/2, 249 is classified as burial ground and Rivas canal. The
petitioners were occupants of these lands, and their occupation of them
is highly objectionable.
15. The petitioners have occupied the government land illegally and cannot
seek compensation after enjoying the property for all these years
without any vested interest. It is submitted that none of the petitioners
has the locus to challenge the acts of the respondent authorities in
declining to grant government property required for public purposes.
16. The respondent No.5 also filed counter and it is stated in the counter
that there were 118 structures which were affected on account of
construction of the ROB and out of the 118 structures 114 structures
belongs to encroachers, however, the 3rd respondent has vide
proceedings dated 10.05.2022 approved allotment of 88 houses to the
encroachers in the Government land and 26 houses to the tenants in
government land under JNNURM G+3 Housing on payment of

12
Rs.66,000/- per house as beneficiary and flats were allotted to all those
beneficiaries by conducting a lottery. The 5th respondent was called
upon to pay an amount of Rs.75,24,000/- in favour of the 3rd
respondent. The details of flats allotted as on 12.09.2020 and
04.05.2022 are also furnished. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd
respondent also submits that some of the petitioners consented to
vacating the property and also accepted the flats.
17. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd
respondent places reliance on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Ramunaidu & 72
and others Vs. Principal Secretary Rev Dept 6 and others2
. The
Division Bench of this Court at para 18 and 19 observed as follows ;
……..18.The occupants of the lands, who do not have D-form pattas,
are also claiming the benefit under Act 30 of 2013 on the ground that
they would fall within the meaning of land holders in Section 3(r) of Act
30 of 2013. Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013 reads as follows:-
“Section-3: Definition:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires;
(a) to (q)
(r) "land owner" includes any person,
(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part
thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or
(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law
of the State including assigned lands; or
(iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court
or Authority;"
19. A plain reading of this provision will bring within its ambit, only
such persons, who are either having dear title to the land or such
persons who would be entitled to grant title over the land. In the present
case, the persons, who are in occupation of the land, cannot claim, as a
matter of right, that they should be granted pattas over the land by the
2
WP.No.43730 of 2016 and batch, decided on 21.03.2025

13
Government. The language of the provisions cannot be given such an
extended meaning.
18. The petitioners filed the rejoinder, disputing the classification of the land
as a burial ground, a water body, a Rivas canal, etc. It is reiterated that
the petitioners must be considered landowners for the purpose of
compensation.
19. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the state and the learned Standing Counsel.
Perused the material on record.
20. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioners are justified
in seeking the relief as prayed for in the writ petitions and whether the
respondent authorities are statutorily obligated to acquire the land under
occupation of the petitioners and pay compensation under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
21. Most of the petitioners have admittedly stated that they are in
occupation of the land, which they have possessed since time
immemorial, and that the property was passed on from their fathers and
forefathers to them. Some of the petitioners claimed to have purchased
the property pursuant to unregistered agreements of sale.
22. The respondents, in their counter, have categorised the land occupied
by the petitioners as government poramboke land, and to a certain

14
extent, the same falls under the Rivas Canal, and a certain extent, is
classified as a burial ground.
23. None of the petitioners has filed any title documents to negate the
respondents' claim. In the absence of any title document, none of the
petitioners and their possession of the property would come within the
ambit of Section 3(n) and 3(r) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
2013.
24. Section 27 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 makes it amply
clear that the Collector, after determining the market value of the land
which is sought to be acquired, would also have calculate the total
amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner, whose land has
been acquired. The Collector is also required to value the assets
attached to the land to determine the compensation payable to the
landowner.
25. The purpose of enacting the Right to Fair Compensation and
2013 is to ensure that landowners and affected families are provided
with just and fair compensation for land acquired. The Act also ensures
that landowners and affected persons become partners in development,
leading to improvements in their post-acquisition social and economic
status.

15
26. An encroacher of Government land would remain an encroacher,
regardless of whether the encroacher has been in possession of the
encroached land for decades. The possession of the said property by
the encroacher is neither permissive possession nor legalised. The said
possession of land would have to be considered illegal, and illegal
encroachers cannot claim equities for the grant of compensation on par
with the landowners having valid title and ownership documents. The
encroachers of any Government land cannot claim any right, title,
interest, lien or any vested interest without regularisation of their
encroachment or the Government issuing any pattas in their favour or
any other legally valid document which would regularise their
encroachment.
27. Insofar as meeting the criteria for taking any action to evict them, the
respondents are duty-bound to issue notices prior to taking any such
action. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, 14.09.2020, the
respondents have issued notices to the petitioners. It is also brought to
the notice of the Court that alternate houses were provided to the 114
encroachers whose properties were affected. This measure was purely
on humanitarian considerations.
28. Illegal encroachers cannot claim compensation and invoke the Right to
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The said Act was not
introduced in the interest of illegal encroachers. The Act is a beneficial

16
legislation which ought to be extended to the land owners and property
owners, who have a valid title over the same or granted any vested
rights under the various enactments or granted any patta rights over the
property, including assigned lands or the property owners who are
declared as owners by virtue of Court orders.
29. The petitioners' cases do not fall within any of the categories for
considering them as landowners, as defined under Section 3(r) of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 3(n) of the Right to
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would also not come to the
rescue of the petitioners, as none of the petitioners held the land in the
capacity of landowners.
30. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the
claim of the petitioners seeking compensation under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 cannot be entertained and the petitioners
have not made out any case for the grant of any other relief(s).
31. The contempt cases are filed for non-compliance with this Court's
directions. As the writ petitions are dismissed, the contempt cases are
also dismissed.
32. Accordingly, the writ petitions and the contempt cases are dismissed.
No costs.

17
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KGM

18
Dated 27.01.2026
KGM

Judgement Regarding Land Acquisition Act not Applicable to Encroachers.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Judgement Regarding Land Acquisition Act not Applicable to Encroachers.pdf

More from ssuser9d8e4e

Recently uploaded

Judgement Regarding Land Acquisition Act not Applicable to Encroachers.pdf