Tadimalla Srimannarayana Prasad Srimannarayana Prasad vs The Court Of The Ii Addl. Senior Civil Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.28075 of 2026

BETWEEN:
1. KURRA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. SATTIRAJU, AGED 60
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO.2-65, GANGANAPALLI
VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
AMRAVATI GUNTURU DISTRICT 522237 AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENT(S)

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 27.10.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI


1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No


___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Page 2 of 13

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ WRIT PETITION No.28075 of 2026

% 27.10.2026

WRIT PETITION No.28075 of 2026

BETWEEN:
1. KURRA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. SATTIRAJU, AGED 60
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO.2-65, GANGANAPALLI
VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
AMRAVATI GUNTURU DISTRICT 522237 AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondent : GP for Revenue
GP for Land Acquisition
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:

1) WP No. 19992 of 2019 dated 17.09.2025.
2) WP No. 13670 of 2021 dated 21.04.2022
3) Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2015 dated 30.03.2015
4) (2019) 9 SCC 304
5) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 235
6) 2020 SCC OnLine All 2132

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 13

Date of reserved for orders : 13.10.2026
Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2026
Date of uploading : 27.10.2026
APHC010512242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3331]

th
TUESDAY, THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 28075/2026
Between:

1. KURRA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. SATTIRAJU, AGED 60
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. H.NO.2-65, GANGANAPALLI
VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
AMRAVATI GUNTURU DISTRICT 522237
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT
533001

3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT
533001
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA
DISTRICT 533001
5. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION
NH216 AND ADDITIONAL JOINT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA,
KAKINADA DISTRICT 533001.

Page 4 of 13

6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR/ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
MORTH, MACHILIPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA-520010

...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased toissue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents in awarding meager compensation for my land
admeasuring Ac 0.10 cents in Sy No 13/9B, Ac. 0.17 cents in
S.No.15/10G and Ac. 0.26 cents in S.No.18/3A of Ganganapalli Village,
Kakinada Rural Mandal East Godhavari District Now Kakinada District
vide award No. 27/2016/NH216 dt 31-03-2016 though the land were
situated in an approved lay out the fixed market value of the said land is
about Rs 4,500/- per Sq.yards and also not paying the interest from the
date of the award to till the date of deposit of the amount and to reject
the my application for enhancement of compensation vide impugned
Ref. I.6/PGRS/358/2026, dated 18-05-2026 of the 6th Respondent as
illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and set aside the
same and consequently direct the Respondents to enhance the
compensation of Rs. 4,500/- per Sq.yards together interest in the interest
of justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased direct the respondents to enhance the compensation of Rs
4,500/- per Sq. yards with interest to the petitioner land admeasuring Ac
0.10 cents in Sy No 13/9B, Ac. 0.17 cents in S.No.15/10G and Ac. 0.26
cents in S.No.18/3A of Ganganapalli Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal
East Godhavari District Now Kakinada District vide award
No27/2016/NH216 dt 31-03-2016 in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D SESHASAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):

Page 5 of 13

1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
The Court made the following:

ORDER

Assailing the endorsement dated 18.05.2026, Exhibit P1 issued by the
third respondent, the above writ petition was filed.

2. The petitioner’s property to an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Survey
No.15/10G; Ac.0.26 cents in Survey No.18-3A, and Ac.0.10 cents in Survey
No.13-9B, Ganganapalle village, fell in the NH-216 alignment. There is no
dispute regarding the notification issued under the provisions of the National
Highways Act, 1956, and an award was passed by the third respondent. The
third respondent, the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition for NH-216 and
Additional Joint Collector, Kakinada, passed Award No.27/2016/NH-216
dated 31.03.2016 for an extent of Ac. 21.23 cents in Survey No.15/5A of
Gangadhar Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. The Authority determined the
compensation in two categories (1) Agricultural Lands and (2) House sites.
For agricultural lands, the Authority determined the compensation at
₹20,73,529 per acre. For house sites, the Authority determined the
compensation at ₹4,500 per square yard.

3. Some of the landowners whose lands were acquired along with the
petitioner made an application under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, seeking enhancement of compensation to the Arbitrator and the
District Collector, Kakinada District, Kakinada, the second respondent. By
proceedings dated 21.04.2026 (Exhibit P8), the second respondent enhanced
the compensation, treating the land as non-agricultural and valuing it at
₹4,500/- per square yard. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint in

Page 6 of 13

PGRS seeking enhancement on par with other landowners. The third
respondent, by endorsement in Exhibit P1, informed the petitioner that the
petitioner could not make an application within the prescribed time and hence
is not entitled to compensation on par with the award Ex P.8 passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal.

4. Heard Sri Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Ms Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for
the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not
served with a copy of the award and, therefore, could not make the
application at the earliest opportunity. He would further contend that Article
137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to arbitral proceedings. Learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras
High Court in Ramchandran Vs. The District Collector-cum-Arbitrator,
1
Villipuram District .

6. Ms. Anusha, learned Assistant Government for Land Acquisition, fairly
assisted the Court and placed a judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya
Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Ganshyam Gupta Vs. The State of
2
Madhya Pradesh through Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator , and contends
that the issue relating to the application of Article 137 is pending before the
Apex Court.

7. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in K. Leela Vs. the District
3
Collector and Arbitrator and Another , held that, as no specific period is
provided for making a claim seeking higher compensation, a residuary clause

1
WP No. 19992 of 2019 dated 17.09.2025.
2
WP No. 13670 of 2021 dated 21.04.2022
3
Writ Appeal No. 226 of 2015 dated 30.03.2015

Page 7 of 13

under Article 137 of the Limitation Act should apply, which is 3 years from the
date on which the right to sue accrues. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble
Apex Court, which granted an interim stay. A batch of matters is pending
before the Apex Court vis-à-vis the applicability of Article 137 to file an
application before the Arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956.

STATUTORY SCHEME

8. The National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as
“ N.H.Act ”) envisages that under Section 3G(1), the amount payable is to
be determined by an order of the competent authority. Under Section
3G(5), if the amount so determined is not acceptable to either party, the
amount shall, on an application by either party, be determined by the
Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Section 3J of the
N.H.Act declares that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall
apply to an acquisition under the Act.

9. The rigour of Section 3J of the N.H.Act has, however, been
qualified by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ Act 30
of 2013 ”). Section 105(1) of Act 30 of 2013 provides that, subject to
Section 105(3), the provisions of that Act shall not apply to the
enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
Sub-section (3) further directs the Central Government to notify that the
provisions of the Act relating to the determination of compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule, and rehabilitation and resettlement
specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the
affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. The National Highways

Page 8 of 13

Act, 1956 is the enactment specified at serial number 7 of the Fourth
Schedule.

10. In compliance with the said provision, the Central Government
issued the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties)
Order, 2015, brought into force with effect from 01.09.2015, applying the
said provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 to all cases of land acquisition
under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

4
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh ,
observed that the Fourth Schedule to the Act 30 of 2013, to be read
along with Section 105, expressly includes the National Highways Act,
1956 at Item 7, and that by the notification dated 28.08.2015 issued
under Section 105 read with Section 113 of the Act of 2013, the
compensation provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 apply to acquisitions that
take place under the National Highways Act. The relevant principle was
summed up in paragraph 31, which is reproduced as under:

“31. Nagpur Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement Trust v.
Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500] has clearly held that ordinarily a
classification based on public purpose is not permissible under Article
14 for the purpose of determining compensation. Also, in para 30, the
seven-Judge Bench unequivocally states that it is immaterial whether
it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the
land is acquired, as, if the existence of these two Acts would enable
the State to give one owner different treatment from another who is
similarly situated, Article 14 would be infracted. In the facts of these
cases, it is clear that from the point of view of the landowner it is
immaterial that his land is acquired under the National Highways Act

4
(2019) 9 SCC 304

Page 9 of 13

and not the Land Acquisition Act, as solatium cannot be denied on
account of this fact alone.”

12. The said position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
5
Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh , observing that,

“18. We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind
Tarsem Singh ( supra ) was to resolve and put quietus upon the
quagmire created by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, which led to the
unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The impact of
Section 3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act
upon the NHAI Act from the date of 01.01.2015.”

13. It follows that a landowner whose land is acquired under the
National Highways Act 1956 does not stand outside the compensation
regime of the Act 30 of 2013. Where, therefore, the competent authority
determines compensation for lands covered by the same notification and
the Arbitrator enhances it on a reference under Section 3G(5), a
landowner who did not seek such a reference is not left without a
remedy.

14. Section 73 of the Act 30 of 2013 recognizes a claim of that
description. Where, in an award under that Chapter, the Authority
concerned allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess
of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 23, the persons
interested in all the other land covered by the same preliminary
notification, and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector,
may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the
Collector, by written application to the Collector within three months from
the date of the award of the Authority concerned require that the amount

5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 235

Page 10 of 13

of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of
the amount of compensation awarded by the Authority. The proviso to
sub-section (1) excludes, in computing the period of three months, the
day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award. Section 73 of the Act 30 of 2013 is in pari
materia with Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

15. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Ram Darash
6
Vs. Union of India , held that the application under Section 73 of the Act
was barred because it was made almost two years after the arbitrator's
award. However, the Court applied Section 73 of the Act 30 of 2013 to
an acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, where the
compensation had been enhanced by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5)
in favour of the landholders who had approached the authority, and
categorically held that the application under Section 73 of the Act of 2013
is maintainable within a period of three months from the date of the
award passed by the Arbitrator.

16. In the present case, the enhanced award is dated 30.03. 2026, and
the petitioner approached the authorities on 11.05.2026, i.e., within 3
months of the enhanced award. The petitioner asserts that he was not
served with a copy of the original award and obtained a copy only on
16.07.2026, on an application under the Right to Information Act. Be that
as it may, on the shortest view of the period within which a claim of parity
founded upon the enhanced award may be made, the petitioner is within
time.

17. The endorsement, Exhibit P1, proceeds upon a different footing. It
records that an application has to be made to the Arbitrator and District

6
2020 SCC OnLine All 2132

Page 11 of 13

Collector seeking enhancement of the compensation “within a period of 3
(three) years from the date of issue of the said award”, and that no such
application having been made, the arbitral award issued in respect of the
farmers around the petitioner’s land cannot be applied to the petitioner.
That premise is erroneous.

18. What the petitioner seeks is not a fresh determination of the
compensation awarded to him standing by itself, but compensation on
par with that awarded to the similarly situated landowners by the
enhanced award. The right to seek such parity could arise only when the
compensation of the similarly situated landowners was enhanced, that is,
on 30.03.2026, and not on 31.03.2016, when the original award was
passed.

nd
19. The petitioner had to make a proper application before the 2
respondent, claiming enhancement of the compensation. The PGRS is an
enabling platform for the needy. The petitioner's application in PGRS could
have been forwarded to the property authority to form an appropriate decision.

rd
20. However, in the case at hand, the 3 respondent, not the competent
authority to decide the said issue, issued the endorsement impugned. The
nd rd
competent authority to decide the issue is the 2 respondent. The 3
respondent is the primary authority, i.e., the competent authority for land
acquisition, to determine compensation, but not to enhance it under Section
3G(5) of the N.H.Act.

21. Furthermore, the petitioner’s claim for parity in compensation rests
upon statutory principles wherein the limitation under Article 137 of the
Limitation Act must be understood in a manner pari materia with the beneficial
scheme of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (and its

Page 12 of 13

corresponding provision, Section 73 of the Act of 2013). Section 28A was
specifically designed to extend the benefit of enhanced compensation to
similarly situated landowners who might not have initially sought a reference.

22. This distinction becomes even more pronounced considering that the
petitioner merely filed a representation through the Public Grievance
Redressal System (PGRS), which the authorities erroneously adjudicated as
if it were a formal statutory arbitral reference. In this regard, specific reliance
must be placed on Govt. Memo No. REV01/457/2026-PGRS, dated
24.09.2026, issued by the Revenue Department. The said Memo explicitly
circumscribes the scope of PGRS applications. Clause (a) of the Memo
categorically directs that PGRS is purely an administrative mechanism for
receiving and monitoring grievances and "shall not be treated as a substitute
for statutory proceedings prescribed under any enactment."

23. Further, Clause (e) of the Memo mandates that where a PGRS
grievance requires the initiation of a statutory proceeding, "the complainant
shall be suitably informed of the prescribed statutory remedy/procedure."
Therefore, instead of unilaterally adjudicating the merits of the claim and
rd
rejecting it on substantive limitation grounds, the 3 respondent was duty-
bound under the Government's own directives to forward the application to
the competent authority.

24. Therefore, as noted supra , Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the
rigour of 3 years do not apply to the facts. In fact, the issue is sub judice
before the Apex Court. In K. Leela’s case, the Apex Court granted an interim
stay against the Division Bench order of the Kerala High Court. As of now,
the Division Benches of the Madras High Court and the Madhya Pradesh
High Court have opined that Article 137 does not apply to an application
under Sec 3G(5) of the N.H.Act.

Page 13 of 13

25. Given the discussion supra , the endorsement dated 18.05.2026
rd
(Ex.P1) issued by the 3 respondent-Joint Collector, is hereby set aside. The
nd
2 respondent, the District Collector, shall re-determine the compensation to
an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Survey No.15/10G; Ac.0.26 cents in Survey
No.18-3A, and Ac.0.10 cents in Survey No.13-9B, Ganganapalle village, fell
within the NH-216 alignment, in terms of Ex.P8, award passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.

__________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

NOTE: LR Copy to be marked
B/O
PVD


Whether the order is:

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No