Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
T. Subramanyam vs V. Shanmugam on 13 July, 2026
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 280/2026
% 13.07.2026
# T. Subramanyam
......appellant
And:
$ V. Shanmugam, & 8 others
.... respondents
!Counsel for the appellant : Sri D.Krishna Murthy
^Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Sri T. Diwakar Reddy
^Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8 : Sri K.Dilip Naik
^Counsel for the respondent No. 9 : Sri K.K.Durga Prasad
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2008) 12 SCC 675
2. (2001) 2 SCC 62
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
WRIT APPEAL NO: 280/2026
Between:
T. Subramanyam
..... PETITIONER
AND
V. Shanmugam, & 8 others
....RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED :
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 13.07.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 21.07.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_____________________________________
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 280/2026
ORDER:
(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri
K.Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.5
to 8. Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel has accepted the
notice of respondent No.9.
2. The writ appellant is respondent No.6 whereas the present
respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.30008 of 2023.
3. The writ petition was filed with the prayer:
“to declare the action of respondent No.2, in proposing to allot
petitioners’ land in an extent of Ac.0.81 ½ cents in Sy.No.82/9A
and an extent of Ac.0.81 ½ cents in Sy.No.82/9B of total Ac.1.63
cents situated at Thimmasamudram Revenue Village, Chittoor
Mandal, Chittoor Municipal Corporation and District to respondent
No.5 under the premise that it is a DKT land by ignoring sale
transactions vide sale deeds vide document Nos.2380/1927,
830/1971 and 5221/1977 and without any notice to the petitioners
and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and
violative of principle of natural justice and consequently, to direct
the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the writ petition not to interfere with
4the writ petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
said land.”
4. The writ petitioners’ case inter-alia was that the subject land
belonged to the petitioners but was allotted to respondent No.5 by
respondent No.2 illegally, without notice and without verification of the
records. The case of the writ petitioners was that they being the owners of
the land to certain extent having purchased in the year 1977 vide document
No.5221/1977 dated 18.06.1977 were entitled for compensation.
5. The writ appellant (respondent No.6 in the writ petition) filed an
application for his impleadment (I.A.No.1 of 2024), which was allowed on
12.11.2025, and he was impleaded as respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
6. The case of the appellant (respondent No.6), inter-alia was that DKT
patta was granted to him and his name was recorded in 1B Namuna and
the revenue records. He disputed the sale deed filed by the writ petitioners
raising the plea that the same was not connected with the subject property.
He claimed that he was entitled to receive the compensation.
7. In the writ petition, respondent No.4 therein – Tahsildar had filed
counter affidavit. It was stated that originally the land was classified as
Government Dry, it was assigned in the year 1955 to certain extent by sub-
dividing into 12. In the year 1965 as per records. The extent of sub-division
No.82/9 was assigned as Ac. 1.63 cents and there were 12 different
5
registered pattadars. The contention of the writ petitioner that the total
extent of the assigned land in Sy.No.82 belonged to one Nambur
Venkataswamy Naidu was disputed. The entry made in the ROR-I in the
name of the petitioners were said to be different to the other entries. It was
further submitted that the entries so made were not attested by any
competent authority along with the orders passed to enter in the Register.
The entry found in ROR-I for the petitioners was said to be not a valid one
but false. It was also stated that as per the provisions of the DKT Rules, the
land in Sy.No.82/9 could not be sold and purchased. The sale transaction
of the subject land was said to be not valid. The further contention was that
the subject land was assigned land and the Government was at liberty to
resume at any time if and when it was required for the public purpose and
the petitioner could not claim a right of sole ownership.
8. A perusal of the judgment shows in para-5 that the petitioners, (may
be during the arguments) sought a direction to the official respondents to
provide compensation to the petitioners according to the Act, 2013 as the
land was allotted to respondent No.5 by respondent No.2 in writ petition for
the development of MIG layout.
9. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment
dated 17.12.2025 by directing the parties to agitate their respective rights
before the ‘Authority’ under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
6
Act, 2013 (in short the ‘Act, 2013’). The Revenue Divisional Officer was
directed to refer the matter to the competent authority and was further
directed not to disburse the amount to either party.
10. Para Nos.9 & 10 of the judgment reads as under:
“9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition
on the touchstone of Section 64 of the Act, directing the Joint Collector
to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act
as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are
directed to agitate their respective rights before the authority under
Section 64 of the Act. The Joint Collector is further directed not to
disburse the amount to either party.
10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.”
11. Initially, the direction as aforesaid was given to the Joint Collector.
Later on, I.A.No.1 of 2026, was filed in the writ petition after the judgment
whereupon by order dated 21.01.2026, the order dated 17.12.2025 was
modified, providing the ‘Revenue Divisional Officer’ to refer the matter
under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to the competent authority instead of
‘Joint Collector’.
12. The order dated 21.01.2026 reads as under:
“I.A.No.1 of 2026
(for being mentioned)
This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition has directed the
Joint Collector to refer the matter to the competent authority under
Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after
referred as ‘the Act’).
7
Today, both the learned counsel jointly represented and stated
that they have wrongly represented before this Court that the claim
amount lies with the Joint Collector, in fact the amount is lying with the
Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, both the learned counsel jointly
requested to modify the order to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to
refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of the Act
instead of the Joint Collector.
Hence, the order is modified directing the Revenue Divisional
Officer to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Act to the competent
authority.
To the aforesaid mentioned, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is ordered.”
13. Challenging the aforesaid orders the writ appeal has been filed by
respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 64 of
the Act, 2013 reference can be made only if the party has not accepted the
award. So, there has to be an award under the Act, 2013. He submitted
that in the present case there was no award under the Act, 2013. So, there
was no question of applicability of Section 64 of the Act and so no question
of making any application for reference and direction to Revenue Divisional
Officer to refer the matter to the ‘Authority’.
15. Learned counsel submits that in the writ petition there is no averment
that the subject land was acquired under the Act, 2013 and an award was
passed. It was nobody’s case of acquisition and the award under the Act,
2013. The grievance raised was that the land belonged to the writ
petitioners and the alleged attempt of dispossession by the official
respondents, as that land was being given to the respondent No.5 by
respondent No.2 in the writ petition.
8
16. Learned counsel further submits that a co-ordinate Bench vide an
order dated 27.04.2026, had directed learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents to seek instructions
whether any land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the
subject land. The order dated 27.04.2026 is as under:
“The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has disposed
of the writ petition, with a direction to the concerned authority to refer the
matter under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. The said Act and the Section applies only when the land is
acquired for any public purpose by initiating land acquisition proceedings
and if the person is not satisfied with the award that was passed in
connection with the said acquisition of the land.
Learned counsel for the writ appellant mainly contends that there
are no proceedings initiated under the Act of 2013 and as such the
question of referring the matter under Section 64 of the Act does not
arise at all.
To a pointed question as to whether any land acquisition
proceedings are initiated in respect of the subject land, learned counsel
for the unofficial respondents/writ petitioners requests time to seek
instructions in this regard and to produce the notification said to have
been issued, acquiring the said land for public purpose.
As it is a crucial issue to decide the lis involved in this writ appeal,
list the matter, finally, for the purpose of producing the said land
acquisition proceedings before the Court, on 04.05.2026.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing
for the official respondents is also directed to seek instructions in this
regard, whether any land acquisition proceedings are initiated in respect
of the subject land, by the next date of hearing.”
17. The respondent No.7 has filed an affidavit dated 07.07.2026. In
paras-3 & 4, it has been stated that the land acquisition proceedings were
not taken. Instead, the lands were resumed on payment of market value as
per G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (ASSN.I) Department, dated 21.06.2016 and
9
the compensation payable to the effected persons were calculated in full
compliance with law. Para Nos.3 & 4 of the affidavit dated 07.07.2026 read
as under:
“3. It is further submitted that Land Acquisition proceedings were not
taken up in this case. Instead, the lands were resumed on payment of
Market Value as per G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (ASSN.I) Department,
dated 21.06.2016, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013).
4. It is submitted that the compensation payable to the affected
parties was calculated strictly under the framework of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, duly applying the multiplication factor under Section 26,
considering the parameters under Section 27, and granting solatium
under Section 30, thereby ensuring that the market value, statutory
benefits and entitlements are extended in full compliance with law.”
18. In view of the affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer –
respondent No.7, inter-alia paras-3 & 4 as quoted above, it is their case
that the subject land was not acquired under the Act, 2013. The same was
resumed from the assignees.
19. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the order
dated 21.01.2026 was passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in the writ petition after
the judgment dated 16.12.2025 and from perusal thereof it is evident that
both the learned counsels jointly represented that the order dated
16.12.2025 be modified and the direction be given to ‘Revenue Divisional
Officer’ to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 64 of
10
the Act, instead of the Joint Collector and so the writ appellant is estopped
from raising the plea of in applicability of Section 64 of the Act, 2013.
20. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
21. The question is whether Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is attracted to
the facts of the present case so as to enable the party to approach
Revenue Divisional Officer for making a reference to the ‘Authority’.
22. Section 64 of the Act, 2013 read as under:
“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.”
11
23. Section 64 provides that any person interested who has not accepted
the award may be written application to the Collector require that the matter
be referred by the Collector to the Authority for the determination of the
Authority, on the points as mentioned in Section 64 of the Act, 2013 i.e.,
the objections relating to measurement of the land; amount of the
compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the right of rehabilitation
and resettlement or the apportionment of the compensation.
24. So, for applicability of Section 64 there must be an ‘award’ and any
party interested must not have accepted the award. If there is no award,
there would be no question of any party interested who had not accepted
the award, for making the application for reference under Section 64.
25. The question therefore is ‘if there is an award under the Act, 2013’.
26. “Award” has not been defined under the Act, 2013. However, Section
23 provides for enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector. Enquires
has to made into the objections filed by the persons interested pursuant to
the notice under Section 21, to the measurements made under Section 20
and into the value of the land at the date of publication of the notification
and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation
and rehabilitation and resettlement. Section 24 provides that the land
acquisition process under the Act No. I of 1894 i.e., land acquisition Act,
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases, inter-alia where no
12
award under Section 11 of land Acquisition Act has been made. Under
Chapter – IV, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer has to pass an award.
Under Chapter – VIII also the authority has to pass an award under Section
69 of the Act, 2013. Such an award is deemed to be decree under Section
70(2) and the statement of the grounds of every such award is deemed to
be a judgment within the meaning of Clause (2) and clause (9) of Section 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further such an award is executable
being a deemed decree. Section 60(2) of the Act, 2013, confers the original
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon every reference made to the Authority under
Section 64. The Authority determines the reference after the reference
application is made to him by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer under
Section 64 or on the application made by the applicant on failure of the
collector to make a reference to him.
27. So, though the Act uses the expression ‘award’ at many places, it
has not been defined under the Act, however from the scheme of the Act it
can be determined whether an adjudication is award or not. So, it requires
consideration, if there was an award within the meaning of Section 64 of
the Act. For the purpose of Section 64 to enable the person interested to
file written application to make a reference to the Authority by the Collector,
there has to be an award. In the absence of an award under the Act, 2013,
the provisions of Section 64 will not apply.
13
28. The relevant question for consideration therefore was if their exists
an award within the meaning of Section 64 or not? If it is a case of
resumption of land, whether such resumption is under the Act, 2013 or
under the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (Act 26 of
1971)? and whether the compensation granted on resumption would be an
‘Award’ under the Act, 2013? so as to attract Section 64 of the Act.
29. We find that any such consideration has not been made in the
judgment in the writ petition. That was the basic fact for determination and
it was only when such determination had been made that the award was
passed under the Act, 2013 an order directing the parties to take recourse
to Section 64 of the Act, 2013 as also directing the RDO to make the
reference and to decide such reference could have been issued.
30. For the determination of such question, the pleadings in the writ
petition as also the counter affidavit required consideration. There is no
such consideration and without adverting to the material issue the writ
petition was disposed of in the light of the provisions of Section 64 of the
Act.
31. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 (writ
petitioners) that in view of the order dated 21.01.2026, it is not open to the
appellant to take this ground of ‘no applicability of Section 64‘, cannot be
accepted. The question of applicability of the legal provisions, viz., Section
64, on the facts not in dispute is a pure question of law. It cannot be said
14
that the correct provision should not be applied, and if some incorrect
provision was stated by the learned counsels to be applicable and the
order was passed thereon, so, the order, cannot be revisited. The legality
of the judgment impugned in writ appeal in the light of the correct legal
provisions, shall always be open. The law is also well settled that there
cannot be an estoppel against the statute. If Section 64 is not attracted, it
cannot be that the party or his counsel cannot raise the submission in writ
appeal that Section 64 is not applicable. We may refer to the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. U.P.Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam
Sangharsh Samiti1 and A.P.Pollution Control Board II v. M.V.Nayudu2,
in which it has been held that “it is settled law that there can be no
estoppels against the statute”.
32. Consequently, the judgments in appeal dated 16.12.2025 &
21.01.2026 deserve to be set aside. The writ petition deserves to be
restored for fresh decision, keeping in view, “whether the present is a case
of an ‘award’ passed under the Act, 2013” and then if so, whether the
remedy to the parties is to take recourse to Section 64 of the Act, 2013.
33. The judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 & 21.01.2026 is set aside.
The writ petition is restored to its original number for fresh decision.
1
(2008) 12 SCC 675
2
(2001) 2 SCC 62
15
34. The affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ appeal pursuant to
the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 27.04.2026, shall also
form part of the record of the writ petition.
35. The Writ Appeal is allowed as aforesaid.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_____________________________________
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J
Dated: 13.07.2026
Note: LR copy be marked
B/o.
AG
16
98
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 280/2026
Dated: 13.07.2026
Note: LR copy be marked
B/o.
AG
