APHC010479932023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

$[3332]$

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 25073/2023

Between:

Shaik Shakeela, and Others

$...$ PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

$...RESPONDENT(S)$

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

• 1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
• 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
• 3. KOMMASANI SRINIVASULA REDDY SC FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES
• 4.J UGRANARASIMHA

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

• "A) To declare the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in initiating proceedings vide R.C.No.G2/1122/2023, dated 30.8.2023, on the file of the 2nd respondent under section 11 (1) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, and Resettlement Act, 30 of 2013, in which the subject property which is divided into plots vide TLP No.1105/0035/NUDA/2023, dated 11.8.2023 situated in Sy.Nos.555, 556, 557, 558, 659, 659/1, 659/2,661/1,661/2 of Mocherla village, Gudluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District belonging to the 4th petitioner which is sought to be acquired, as illegal, void, abinitio, arbitrary and nonest in the eye of law and also violation of the provisions engrafted to the Act, 2013.
• B) Consequently, to set-aside proceedings vide R.C.No.G2/1122/2023, dated 30.8.2023, on the file of the 2' respondent under section 11 (1) of Right -2013, in which the subject property which is divided into plots vide TLP No.1105/0035/NUDA/2023, dated 11.8.2023 situated in Sy.Nos.555, 556, 557, 558, 659, 659/1, 659/2,661/1,661/2 of Mocherla village, Gudluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District belonging to the 4th petitioner which is sought to be acquired,
• C) Consequently, to direct the 5th respondent to receive and register the sale deeds executed by the 4th petitioner infavour of the prospective buyers in respect of the plots divided in the subject property vide TLP No.1105/0035/NUDA/2023, dated 11.8.2023 situated in Sy.No.555,556,557,558,659,659/1, 659/2,661/1,661/2 of Mocherla village, Gudluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District…."
• 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner no.1 is owner

and possessor of Ac.3.38 cents in Survey No.555, Ac.0-75 cents in Survey No.556 having acquired the same under registered settlement deed, the 2nd petitioner is lawful owner and possessor of Ac.0.36 cents in Survey No.556, Ac.2.90 cents in Survey No.557, Ac.1.47 cents in Surey No.659, having purchased it under registered sale deed and the 3rd respondent is owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Survey No.659/1, Ac. 1.70 cents in

Survey No.557, Ac.1.17 cents in Survey No.558, Ac.1.06 cents in Survey No.659, Ac.1.09 cents in Survey No.661/2, Ac.1-03 cents in Survey No.659/2, Ac.2-07 cents in Survey No.659 having purchased them under registered sale deeds. The petitioners sold their respective properties to the 4th petitioner and executed agreements to sell upon receiving advance sale consideration and handed over possession of the properties, undertaking to cooperate in getting land conversion certificate from local bodies apart from extending cooperation to mortgage the property with the authority for getting approved the final layout.

It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter they made separate applications dated 07.07.2023 for conversion of the subject property from agriculture use to non-agriculture use and the 3rd respondent after due enquiry issued proceedings dated 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023 duly converting the subject property from agriculture use to non agriculture use. Meanwhile, the subject property was divided into residential plots and layout has been prepared by showing the amenities and other public utilities in terms of the Rules and Regulations of Nellore Urban Development Authority and submitted joint application of the petitioners to the authority for approval and the petitioners had also executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the 6th respondent to an extent of 8228.33 sq.yards by way of registered document

No.6831 of 2023, dated 28.07.2023. In pursuance of the agreements to sell, the petitioners executed registered sale deeds in favour of the 4th petitioner on 24.07.2023 in respect of part of the land covered under those agreements and though sale deeds could not be executed in respect of other extent, the entire land was in possession of the 4th petitioner. Thereafter, the 6th respondent vide proceedings dated 11.08.2023 issued Tentative layout pattern (TLP) as per Rule 7(5)(e) of A.P.Land Development (Layout and Sub Division) Rules, 2017 subject to conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, from out of 95,580 sq.yards of the total land i.e. Ac.19.76 cents in which temporary layout pattern has been approved by the 6th respondent, 55,580 sq.yards remained with the petitioners for sale, as the remaining 40,000 sq.yards is earmarked for providing roads, amenities, public open space and utility area. The petitioners executed a registered sale deeds in favour of 3rd parties to an extent of 15,736 sq.yards and by August, 2023, much prior to issuance of the impugned notification dated 30.08.2023, rights of the third parties have been created over an extent of 15,736 sq.yards through registered sale deeds. However, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 ignored the said transactions and did not choose to show them as parties in the impugned notification, though the registered sale deeds are in the domain of respondent nos. 1 to 3.

It is the further case of the petitioners that when the 4th petitioner approached the 5th respondent to register the plots to the prospective buyers by getting the sale deeds registered in favour of the prospective buyers on 1.9.2023 in respect of the remaining land, the 4th petitioner is orally informed by the 5th respondent that he had received instructions from the 3rd respondent not to register the subject property in view of the fact that the subject property is required for rehabilitation of the farmers whose land have been acquired for construction of Ramayapatnam Non-Major port which is said to be public purpose.

It is the further case of the petitioners, that on enquiry, they noticed that the 2nd respondent issued Form No.6(A) under Section 11(1) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, and Resettlement Act, 30 of 2013 and Rule 19(1) of Right to Fair Comepsnation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, and Resettlement Rules, 2018, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide R.C.No.G2/1122/2023, dated 30.08.2023 of the 2nd respondent, in which it is stated that the subject property as scheduled in the notification is required for the public purpose i.e. rehabilitation of the farmers whose lands have been acquired for construction of the said Non-Major Port. Assailing the actions of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification dated 30.08.2023 and that of the 5th

respondent in refusing to entertain the registration of the subject property pursuant to the said notification, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit, denying the averments of the writ petition inter alia contending that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded approval for establishment of Green field Non-Major Port near Ramayapatnam village of SPSR Nellore District and for the said purpose land in an extent of Ac.760-00 was acquired and construction of project involved shifting of four habitations viz., Avulavaripalem, Mondivaripelm, Karlapalem and Salipeta S.T.Colony of Ravuru Village of Gudluru Mandal. Out of the total 675 displaced families, 550 families belong to Fishermen community and therefore their rehabilitation must be nearer to sea for pursuing their livelihood of fishing. The habitations viz., Mondivaripalem and Avulavaripalem have been shifted to a Government land in an extent of Ac.23-00 cents located on the highway that leads to Tettu-Ramayapatnam, which is near to sea and an extent of Ac.43-00 of land is required to accommodate the remaining 455 Project Displaced Families of Karlapalem and Salipeta. In the project steering committee meeting, the Project Displaced Families have conveyed their consent and requested to allot the land in Survey Nos. 555, 556, 557, 646, 659, 660, 661, 662 & 663 and pursuantly a feasibility study was done and report was sent to the requisition agency and the said agency

had sent a requisition to District Collector. The above land consists of Ac.29- 00 of private land and Ac.14-73 cents of government assigned land. The petitioners are owners of Ac.20-89 cents out of Ac.29-00 cents. Knowing that the authorities are proceeding for acquisition, the land owners resorted to registration of lands to others. Land was sold as plots on 24.07.2023 without converting the same from agriculture use to non-agriculture use and without obtaining lay out plan approval from Nellore Urban Development Authority and despite the objections raised by the said authority and more over the plots was sold in bulk to the 4th petitioner and some others. The said sales are not actual sales they are only sham transactions to create obstruction from the land acquisition.

It is the further case of the 3rd respondent that the land was not converted from agriculture to non-agriculture. In fact, the petitioners had applied for conversion of land and by filing receipts of online applications they are claiming conversion. The Nellore Urban Development Authority had never approved the layout. In fact, the authority had given an endorsement on 23.08.2023 to submit land conversion certificate and clearance from Revenue authority that the sites do not fall in the development of Ramayapatnam Port.

It is the further case of the 3rd respondent that on the requisition sent by 7th respondent, the Sub Collector, Kandukur submitted preliminary

Notification proposals to the Collector on 25.07.2023 and the District Collector sent proposals to Government on 01.0-8.2023 for exemption of the provisions of Chapter II & III of Act 30 of 2013 and for issuance of notification in Form-A(2) as required under Section 10-A of Amendment Act 22/2018. The Government had issued notification vide Gazette G.663, dated 24.08.2023 and the District Collector issued preliminary Notification on 30.08.2023 to acquire the private lands including that of the petitioners. The land in the subject matter was under consideration from 09.05.2023 onwards. The petitioners only with a view to obstruct acquisition of land for Project Displaced Families had resorted to executing sale agreements with antedates with high value. The unregistered sale deed first executed was on 19.06.2023, which is three days after the steering committee meeting held by the Project Administrator on 16.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners had resorted to all methods like application for land conversion from agriculture to Non-agriculture use, application for layout approval, registration of Mortgage Deed in favour of NUDA and registration of plots on third party names. This clearly would go to show that sale agreements were manufactured for the purpose of averting land acquisition process. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

4. The 5th respondent-Sub Registrar, filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that the 2nd respondent had issued a notification for acquisition of an extent of Ac.20-89 cents of land under Section 11(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 that the said lands are needed for public purpose. As per amended Section 22-A(1)(e)(1), any document or class of documents pertaining to the properties the State Government may by notification prohibit the registration in which owed or accrued interests of Central and State Government, local bodies, educational, cultural, religious and Charitable Institutions, those attached by Civil, Criminal, Revenue Court and Indirect Tax laws and other which are likely to adversely affect those interests, are prohibited from registration. Since the land which was intended for registration by the petitioners was covered under land acquisition notification and the same was included in prohibited properties list as per 22- A(1)(e) of Registration Act. So long the properties continue under the said list, this respondent cannot process the document. The petitioners were informed of the same. The 5th respondent has no authority to exercise discretion in this regard and the District Collector is the competent authority under Section 22-A of Registration Act, to notify any property prohibition from alienation, by way of sale, gift or otherwise. This respondent will implement the orders, if any passed by this Court.

5. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit inter alia contending that online Application was received on 11.08.2023 for approval of the residential layout in the subject survey numbers in a total extent of Ac.19.74 cents and having noticed that no NOC was obtained from the Revenue Department under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purpose), the petitioners were called by way of an endorsement dated 23.08.2023 to submit the same for giving approval to the layout, however, the petitioners did not submit the said NOC from the revenue authorities. The contents of the writ affidavit about issuance of Tentative Layout Pattern (TLP) subject to conditions stipulated therein by this respondent is not correct. In fact, by endorsement dated 23.08.2023 short falls were communicated and the petitioners were called upon to submit Land Conversion proceedings issued by the revenue authority, clearance certificate from the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that the proposed site does not fall in any development of Ramayapatnam port and to submit No Objection Certificate from the concerned RDO duly certifying that the said proposal is not falling in any land acquisition, land pooling schemes since the surrounding lands are under development of Ramayapatnam Port. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

6. The 7th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit and while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, inter alia contended that, out of the total land sought to be acquired of Ac.43.89 cents; an extent of Ac.28.94 cents is a private patta land and the remaining Ac.14.95 cents is an assigned land. The subject land was under consideration for acquisition from 09.05.2023 and only with a view to obstruct acquisition of land, the sale agreements with antedates with inflated purchase value were brought into existence. The Nellore Urban Development Authority had never approved the layout and the authority had given an endorsement on 23.08.2023 to submit land conversion certificate and clearance from Revenue authority that the sites do not fall in the development of Ramayapatnam Port. Land was sold as plots on 24.07.2023 without converting the same from agriculture use to nonagriculture use and without an approved layout, by making false recitals in the sale deeds as if there was conversion of the land and was an approved layout. There are no merits in the writ petition. The same deserves dismissal.

7. The petitioner filed reply affidavits and while reiterating the contents of the writ petition and denying the averments made in the counter affidavits, further contended that in the notification issued by the 1st respondent published in gazette on 24.08.2023 , it is stated that patta lands of Ac.54.54

cents are proposed to be acquired for provision of houses in Rehabilitation and Resettlement colony to the Project Displaced Families basing on the letter dated 01.08.2023 addressed by the 2nd respondent and letter dated 03.08.2023 of CCLA, Andhra Pradesh. Form-A(2) of Section 10-A of Rule 4 annexed to the aforesaid notification depicts that Chapter II & III of the Act, 2013 are exempted by invoking provisions under Section 10-A of the amended Act,2018, since the said land is required in the public interest for the project namely Ramayapatnam Non-major port. Providing rehabilitation to the project displaced families is not found in the grounds engrafted to Section 10-A of the Act,2018. Form A(2) annexed to the notification dated 24.08.2023 nowhere mentions that the said land is required for rehabilitation of displaced families. Further, since the said notification under Section 10-A of the Act does not reveal the locality such as village, survey numbers etc., to keep the petitioners informed that their lands are sought to be acquired, the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of assailing the very notification under Section 10- A is liable to be declared as non-est in the eye of law. The 1st respondent has neither power nor jurisdiction to exempt the provisions of Chapter II & III particularly for the present purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of project displaced families. Section 16 of the Act, 2013 stipulates that upon publication of preliminary notification under sub section 1 of Section 11, the administrator for rehabilitation and resettlement shall conduct survey and

undertake census of affected families in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. The intention of the legislature behind incorporating the provisions for preparation of rehabilitation and resettlement scheme by the notified administrator is that the acquisition for project is not part and parcel of the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme as separate procedure has been mandated upon the respondents to be followed for the said purpose. There is no provision to dispense with the aforesaid mandatory provisions. Therefore, the impugned notification issued under Sections 10-A & 11(1) of Act, 2013 dated 30.08.2023 are liable to be set aside.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, as per Rule-4 of A.P.Agricultural Land (Conversion for non agricultural purpose), Rules, 2018, on payment of requisite one time conversion tax, the land stands converted and can be used for non agriculture purpose by declaration and conversion of land in revenue record is mandatory. The 6th respondent vide file dated 11.08.2023 granted approval of residential layout plan in an extent of Ac.19.7478 cents. The endorsement dated 23.08.2023 is not made available to the petitioners so far and by the date of the alleged endorsement, no land acquisition proceedings against the subject property is notified. It is the contention of the respondent authorities that the petitioners' land was acquired, as no other government land is available in the vicinity, but as per

the details available on website, an extent of Ac.31.58 cents in Survey No.540 and an extent of Ac.11.68 cents in Survey No.588, apart from small extents of government lands are available. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

8. Heard, Sri V.R.Avula, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Sri Padmaja, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration & Stamps, Sri K. Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Nellore Urban Development Authority and Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned Standing counsel for A.P.Maritime Board.

9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant here to note that the issue involved in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass as to whether the purpose for which the subject land is sought to be acquired fits into the grounds engrafted to Section 10-A of the Act 22 of 2018. If so, whether the notification did contain all the necessary particulars as required under Section 10-A of Act 22 of 2018. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties overreaching the issue to be decided in this writ petition such as conversion and layout approvals and proximity of sales visà-vis notification are neither stated nor considered, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise those claims at appropriate time.

10. Sri V.R.Avula, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and reply affidavit, further contended that, the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired i.e. for providing rehabilitation to the project displaced families, is not found in the grounds engrafted to Section 10-A of the Act,2018 and therefore, the 1st respondent has neither authority nor jurisdiction to exempt application of the provisions of Chapter II & III of the Act to the proposed acquisition. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the notification issued under Section 10-A of the Act 22 of 2018 does not reveal the locality such as village, survey numbers etc., to let the petitioners know that their lands are sought to be acquired and thus the petitioners were denied of the opportunity of assailing the notice issued under Section 10-A of the Act. Thus, the 10-A notification having been issued exceeding the power and authority conferred upon the 1st respondent by the Act and further since the same is bereft of necessary particulars so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the very issuance of such notice, the same is void abinitio, arbitrary and non-est in the eye of law and also in violation of the provisions engrafted to Act,2013. Pursuantly, the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act must also fail and is liable to be quashed.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that as per the details available on website, sufficient extent of government land is available within

the vicinity of the subject property and availability of government land bars the authorities from acquiring the private patta land of the petitioners.

The learned senior counsel would further submit that the counter affidavits filed by respondents more particularly the 3^rd respondent-sub collector states that the Project Displaced Families had selected the subject lands for being assigned to them as house sites, which is unknown to law, and the beneficiaries cannot choose a particular land that too a private patta land as per their whims and fancies and pressurize the authorities to get it allotted to them. This indicates that identification of the subject land is not by the authorities as per the norms, Rules and provisions of the Act but solely on the pressure exerted on by the beneficiaries on the authorities. On this count also the notifications issued under section 10-A and 11 of the Act are liable to be quashed.

In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied on the decisions (1) Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. vs. State of Orissa and others¹ (2)Satish Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of Haryana and others² (3) Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi and others³ (4) Narendrajit Singh vs. The State of U.P. and others⁴ (5)

^&lt;sup>1</sup>. 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 300

^&lt;sup>2</sup>. (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 760

$\overline{3}$ . (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 168

^&lt;sup>4</sup>. AIR 1971 Supreme Court 306

Mullangi Vijaya Bharkar vs. The State of Telangana⁵ (6)Arumalla Sridhar Reddy and others vs. The District Collector Hyderabad District and Others⁶ and (7) the orders of the Kerala High Court⁷.

11. Per contra, the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition & the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Maritime Board can be summarized as under:

The purpose of acquisition of the subject land is to provide rehabilitation to Project Displaced Families, whose lands were acquired for establishment of a Non-Major Port, which is an infrastructure project. Thus, the proposed acquisition also forms part of implementation of the infrastructure project and the same also would come within the sweep of section 10A of the Act. The learned counsel would further contend that the notification under Section 10A of the Act need not contain any details such as village and survey numbers of the lands and what all required is that the State Government must ensure that minimum extent of the land is only acquired. Act 30 of 2013 nowhere provides for any mechanism for challenging the notification under Section 10A of the Act 22 of 2018 and hence non

^&lt;sup>5</sup>. 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 187

^&lt;sup>6</sup>. MANU/TL/1120/2022

^&lt;sup>7</sup>. Orders dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.29569 of 2021 & 2945 of 2022.

mentioning of any details in the notification would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.

The learned counsel would further submit that the Project Displaced Families that are sought to be rehabilitated in the subject property are Fishermen and hence in order to see that there may not be any difficulty for them to pursue their avocation they are to be rehabilitated near to sea and thus the subject property, which is very near to sea, is identified as suitable for rehabilitation and in view of the location of the property within the vicinity of sea the PDFs have also expressed their satisfaction. The entire process of identification of suitable lands was done by the concerned officials only and the counter affidavits only states that the PDFs have chosen to be accommodated in the subject property. The contentions raised by the learned senior counsel to the contrary that the beneficiaries have chosen the land and then pressurized the authorities to acquire it does not bear any truth.

The learned counsel would further submit that availability of government land pointed out by the learned senior counsel was in fact assigned to various assignees long back and the original assignees of those lands are claiming restoration of the land to them and the process to resolve the issues as per Rules and as per the Provisions of the Act may take a lot of

time and in the meantime the PDFs who belong to poor strata of the society would be put to severe hardship.

The learned counsel would further submit that the observations made in the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel are not in relation to Section 10-A of the Act 18 of 2022 and hence they cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

12. Perusal of the material available on record would indicate that construction of a Greenfield Non-Major port near Ramayapatnam village in Gudluru Mandal involved in shifting of four Fishermen Habitations viz., Avulavaripalem, Mondivaripalem, Karlapalem and Salipeta ST Colony of Ravuru village of Gudluru Mandal consisting of 675 Project Displaced Families(DPFs), whose avocation and source of livelihood is fishing in the sea. Out of the 675 DPFs, 220 DPFs have been shifted to Government land of Ac.23-00 cents situated in Survey Nos.600,601,602 of Ravuru village, which is very near to sea. For rehabilitating the remaining 455 PDFs, the subject land belonging to the writ petitioners is sought to be acquired.

13. The record would further disclose that the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Maritime Board has sent requisition to the District collector on 20.07.2023 to acquire the lands of the petitioners for rehabilitation of PDFs of

Karlapalem. The Sub Collector, Kandukur submitted preliminary notification proposals to the Collector on 25.07.2023 and the District Collector sent proposals to Government on 01.08.2023 for exemption of the provisions of Chapter II & III of Act 30 of 2013 and for issuance of notification in Form-A(2) as required under Section 10-A of amendment Act 22 of 2018. Accordingly, the Government had issued Notification vide Gazette G.663, dated 24.08.2023. The said notification is extracted hereunder:

REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LANDS-VI)

Memo.No.REV01-LANA/920/2023-LANDS-VI Date: 22.08.2023

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT – KANDUKUR DIVISION, GUDLUR MANDAL – ACQUISITION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RAMAYAPATNAM NON-MAJOR PORT – IMPLEMENTATION OF R&R SCHEME - LAND REQUIRED FOR PROVISION OF HOUSES IN R&R COLONY TO THE PDFs OF RAMAYAPATNAM PORT – PATTA LANDS OF A cs. 54.54 PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITON – REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF APPLICATIN OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER-II AND III OF THE ACT 30 OF 2023.

• Ref:1.From the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Letter No.Rc.G2/992/2023, Dated 01.08.2023.
• 2. From the CCLA, AP, Letter No.LA-II/.REVO2-20/47, Dated 03.08.2023.

***

Form-A(2) (See Section 10A and Rule4) Notification for exemption of Chapter II & III

***

On the requisition filed by Requisition Department in Form-A(1), in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 10(A) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended by Act 22 of 2018, the Government hereby in the public interest exempt the project namely Ramayapatnam non-major port in

SPSR Nellore District measuring an extent of Acs. 54.54 from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act. It is also certified that all efforts have been made in finalizing the minimum extent of land required for the said project.

G.SAI PRASAD Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue (Lands & DM) Department.

14. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, the said notification issued in Form-A(2) does not contain the Village and survey numbers wherein the land sought to be acquired is located. Except mentioning the extent of the land proposed for acquisition and that the said land is required for provision of Houses in R&R colony to the PDFs of Ramayapatnam Port, no other details were given. In view of the specific contention raised by the learned senior counsel that for want of particulars the petitioners were deprived the opportunity of challenging the said notification issued under Section 10A of the Act 22 of 2018, it is necessary to see the purport of the amended Act.

15. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018) is enacted to amend the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013 in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

16. A new Chapter III A has been inserted. The amended provision 10A of the Act grants the power of State Government to exempt certain projects from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and Chapter III of the principal Act. Such projects include: (a) the projects which are vital to national security or defence of India and every part thereof, including preparation for defence or defence production. (b) rural infrastructure including electrification; (c) affordable housing and housing for the poor people; ( d) industrial corridors set up by the State Government and its undertakings; and ( e) infrastructure projects, including projects under public-private partnership where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the Government.

17. Chapter II of the Principal Act contains two parts. Part A deals with preliminary investigation for determination of social impact and public purpose, which includes Preparation of Social Impact Assessment study, Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment, Publication of Social Impact Assessment study. Part B deals with appraisal of social impact assessment report by an expert group which comprises, Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment report by an Expert Group, Examination of proposals for land acquisition and Social Impact Assessment report by appropriate Government and Section 9 of the Act envisages that Where land is proposed to be acquired invoking the urgency provisions under section 40, the appropriate

Government may exempt undertaking of the Social Impact Assessment study, whereas CHAPTER III deals with special provision to safeguard food security.

18. The amended Section 10A of the Act 22 of 2018 empowers the State Government to exempt the application of Social Impact Assessment Study and irrigated multi-cropped land can also be acquired. Section 10A of Act 22 of 2018 is to avoid delay on account of social impact assessment study in case the acquisition is for the purposes specified therein. Act 22 of 2018 does not contain any provision that enables the owner of the land whose land is sought to be acquired by exempting the application of Chapters II & III of the Act to challenge the same at that stage. Therefore, absence of particulars of the village and survey numbers wherein the proposed land is situated in the notification issued under Section 10-A of the Act no way cause any prejudice to the petitioners, since the Act did not provide any remedy to the petitioners at that stage.

19. Regarding the next flank of argument of the learned senior counsel that the purpose of acquisition does not fall in any of the grounds engrafted to section 10A of the Act; the purpose of acquisition is to rehabilitate the Project Displaced persons of a Non-Major port called Ramayapatnam port, which is an infrastructure project. There is no dispute that the displaced persons belong to poor strata of the society and their prime avocation is

fishing in sea. The subject lands are very near to sea. Rehabilitation includes ensuring the persons rehabilitated to pursue their avocation without much difficulty.

20. An overall view of the amendment Act 18 of 2022 makes it abundantly clear that the said Act was brought into existence to ensure that there may not be any delay and consumption of time in the matters of acquisition of land for infrastructure projects, providing houses for poor. Failure to rehabilitate the Project Displaced families of an infrastructure project would definitely impede the process of construction of that infrastructure project to a considerable extent for the reason, unless the DPFs are rehabilitated proceeding with construction of project would not be possible. Therefore, land acquisition proceedings initiated for rehabilitating the DPFs of a infrastructure project can also be brought within the sweep of 'infrastructure project' mentioned in section 10A of the Act 22 of 2018. The said Act also envisages that the government can exempt application of Chapters II & III of the Principal Act for providing affordable housing and housing for the poor people. As already stated, since the DPFs are poor and the subject land is sought to be acquired for provision of houses, the Government is authorized under section 10A of the amended Act 18 of 2022 to exempt application of chapters II and III.

21. The decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel are not in relation to section 10(A) of the Act 18 of 2022 and they are in relation to Sections 4 & 6 and as to whether construction of Collectorate fall within the ambit 'public purpose' and therefore, the observations made therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

22. The further contention of the learned senior counsel regarding availability of alternative government lands in the vicinity is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that those lands were assigned long back and acquisition process in respect of those lands may take considerable time, merits consideration. This court is unable to find any merit in the further contention of the learned senior counsel that the beneficiaries have chosen the land, in view of the counter contention that the subject property is near to sea, the beneficiaries accepted it. It is to be borne in mind that the DPFs being fishermen are to be rehabilitated near to sea so as to ensure that they may pursue their avocation with ease.

23. Therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioners are at liberty to agitate their claims by putting forth their contentions regarding conversion of lands from agriculture to non

agriculture, layout approvals and proximity of sales vis-à-vis notification, at appropriate time before the appropriate authorities.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

26th MARCH, 2024 RR