AP High Court orders land compensation parity in Kakinada
- AP High Court orders re-determination of land compensation for NH-216 project.
- Justice Subba Reddy Satti ruled landowners can seek parity after others receive enhancements.
- The court clarified that the right to seek re-determination arises when other awards are enhanced.
- The District Collector is identified as the competent authority to process the claim.
- The re-determination must be completed within four weeks of receiving the order.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered the Kakinada District Collector to re-determine land acquisition compensation for a farmer to ensure parity with other landowners who previously received enhanced awards. Justice Subba Reddy Satti issued the directive on November 10, 2026, setting aside a previous endorsement that had rejected the petitioner's claim.
This court order requires that the compensation for the property, acquired for the NH-216 highway project, be adjusted to match the levels awarded to others through the arbitration process. The ruling affirms that landowners are entitled to compensation parity once others have secured enhancements under the same notification.
While this case impacts local land acquisition policy, a separate legal development involves the Madras High Court ordering the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register a police case regarding procurement irregularities in Tamil Nadu public libraries.
The Madras High Court also directed the government to initiate disciplinary action and suspend officials involved in the fraudulent procurement of books for the Periyar Arivulagam project.
The court further mandated that books by first-time authors must be scrutinized by a selection committee against the standards expected of established authors.
The Director of Public Libraries must now identify officials responsible for these procurements over the past two years and file an affidavit detailing the sequence of events. The government has cancelled existing procurement orders, and the contempt petition is scheduled for a further hearing on November 11, 2026.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti affirms right to compensation parity
Justice Subba Reddy Satti, presiding over a Single Judge Bench, ruled that a landowner who did not initially seek enhancement under the National Highways Act, 1956, is entitled to seek re-determination of compensation. This right to parity arises at the time the other landowners' compensation is enhanced, rather than when the original acquisition award was passed.
Dispute over Ganganapalli village land valuation
The dispute centers on land located at Ganganapalli village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, which was acquired for the NH-216 alignment. The original award for this acquisition was passed on March 31, 2016.
The petitioner's land was originally classified as agricultural and received a lower valuation.
Petitioner challenges limitation period rejection
The Joint Collector of Kakinada previously rejected the petitioner’s request for enhanced compensation, arguing the claim was filed after the prescribed time limit.
The petitioner contested this decision, stating he was never served the original award. He obtained the award only through an application under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner argued that the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not apply to his case.
Applicability of 2013 Land Acquisition Act provisions
The Court noted that the Central Government’s Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015, became effective on September 1, 2015.
Under Section 73 of the 2013 Act, landowners are permitted to seek re-determination of compensation within three months of an enhanced award being granted to others covered by the same notification.
The Court found the petitioner approached the authorities on May 11, 2026. This date fell within three months of the enhanced award granted to other landowners on March 30, 2026.
Clarification on administrative grievance mechanisms
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the Public Grievance Redressal System is an administrative mechanism and cannot serve as a substitute for statutory proceedings.
The Court determined that the Joint Collector is not the competent authority to decide claims for enhanced compensation. It identified the District Collector as the appropriate authority for this process.
Four-week deadline for compensation re-determination
The District Collector of Kakinada must conclude the re-determination of compensation for the petitioner. This process is required to be completed within four weeks of receiving the court order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google