The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a judgment delivered by a single judge, reaffirmed that when the State admits liability for compensation after land acquisition, the writ remedy of mandamus is available for directing expeditious payment. The Court upheld the established procedural rights of landowners, clarified enforceability against administrative delay, and provided clear timeline directions. The decision functions as binding authority for subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh and carries persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/11935/2021 of B. Lakshminarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010206862021 |
| Date of Registration | 23-06-2021 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice B Krishna Mohan) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Andhra Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Type of Law | Land Acquisition Procedure; Constitutional Law—Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for expeditious release of compensation when the State admits liability but delays payment post-land acquisition. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in cases where the State and its officers have admitted liability for compensation under land acquisition proceedings, a writ of mandamus is maintainable to direct payment expeditiously. Mere administrative or inter-departmental delays do not justify withholding compensation due under law. The Court emphasized the rights of landowners to receive compensation soon after acquisition and found that established procedures and admissions by respondents entitled the petitioners to prompt relief. Respondents were directed to release compensation strictly in accordance with law, preferably within three months. The decision reiterates the binding nature of procedural compliance post-admission of liability in land acquisition cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgments cited; reliance was on the admitted position in the official record and established statutory procedures. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners sought compensation for land acquired (Sy.No.126-1 (3.29 acres)) for tank construction at Malyavantham village. The State admitted acquisition and liability, but delayed payment pending release of funds between departments. Administrative correspondence showed repeated requests to higher authorities for fund allotment. Court record noted the entire acquisition process, requests for compensation, and State’s admissions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh; binding under Article 226 for similar factual situations. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court of India in cases related to writs for expeditious payment of compensation. |
| Follows | Established procedural law for mandamus post-admission of liability by State in land acquisition matters. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that landowners can approach the High Court under Article 226 for mandamus even when the only impediment is administrative delay, provided liability is admitted.
- Clear procedural direction: where compensation is admitted, courts may specify timelines for payment (here, three months).
- Shows that ongoing inter-departmental fund chasing within government is not a valid legal ground to refuse/refrain from payment after liability is acknowledged.
- Admission in counter-affidavit by government officers significantly strengthens writ petitioners’ legal position.
- Subordinate courts may cite this as binding precedent regarding enforceability of admitted statutory liabilities by State authorities in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the admitted position by the State, as reflected in detailed counter-affidavit and administrative correspondence, that land belonging to petitioners had been acquired and compensation was due.
- Noted sequence of governmental requests and reminders for funds, but found that administrative bottlenecks do not affect the petitioners’ entitlement once liability is admitted.
- Observed that no substantial dispute remained on entitlement or quantum—only payment machinery/lapses caused delay.
- Applying established principles of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court held mandamus was appropriate, as the State’s obligation to pay compensation was clear, unconditional, and overdue.
- Directed respondents to release compensation to petitioners within three months in accordance with law, thus remedying the delay.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondents failed to pay compensation for land acquired for public purpose, despite the passage of time.
- The action/inaction by the State was arbitrary, illegal, and caused significant hardship.
Respondent (State)
- Admitted that land acquisition proceedings were initiated and compensation is due.
- Clarified that preliminary notifications and requests for fund release were ongoing, with multiple reminders sent to relevant authorities for budget allocation.
- Funds awaited from Requisition Department; further action contingent on intra-departmental processes.
Factual Background
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against State officers for failure to pay compensation after acquisition of 3.29 acres of land (Sy.No.126-1) for tank construction at Malyavantham village, Bathalapalli Mandal, Ananthapuram District. The State admitted that land was acquired, and internal correspondence confirmed repeated requests for funds to enable payment. Despite completion of all acquisition formalities and acknowledgment of liability, the compensation amount remained unpaid at the time of the writ.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced the statutory process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (L.A.R. & R Act 2013).
- No interpretation or reading down of any provision was undertaken; the focus remained on procedural compliance and admitted statutory obligations of the State.
- Article 226 of the Constitution invoked to issue the writ of mandamus, as statutory rights under land acquisition law were not disputed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No novel procedural innovations were set; the Court followed standard writ proceedings and time-bound direction-default mechanisms.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision applies and reinforces existing procedural law that mandamus is appropriate for enforcing admitted statutory liabilities by the State.