Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 690 (TS)

Yedurugatla Ellaiah v. State of Telangana

2023-10-06

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

body2023
ORDER : (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri G. Chandan Raaj, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents. 2. All the petitioners herein are the assignees of different extents of Government lands situated at Engal Village of Chandurthi Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. Beside the land that was assigned in favour of the petitioners, several other patta lands i.e., to an extent of Acs.23-33 gts., of patta land and Acs.31-15gts., of assigned land was sought to be acquired for formation of new tank across Nakkavagu situated at Engal Village. In respect of the patta lands, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act,1894) and the award dated 13.09.1998 was passed. On the request made by the pattadars, covered by the said award, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 which was answered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Siricilla in L.A.O.P. No.2 of 2001, by an order dated 15.03.2002. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, an appeal was filed in A.S. No.1671 of 2003, before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 5.06.2014 modified the order passed in LA.O.P. No.2 of 2001. However, insofar as the lands that are assigned in favour of the petitioners are concerned, the respondents, instead of following the provisions of the Act, 1894, issued proceedings bearing Lr.No.A1/1101/02, dated 30.06.2005 granting ex-gratia and the said amount was paid to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners herein, having come to know about the orders passed in LA.O.P. No.2 of 2001 and the judgment passed by this Court in A.S. No.1671 of 2003, dated, 05.06.2014 approached respondent No. 1 by submitting a representation, dated 27.08.2018 claiming that they are also entitled for payment of compensation on par with the patta lands and in terms of the orders passed in LA.O.P. No.2 of 2001 and A.S. No.1671 of 2003. 5. Complaining the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the said representation, dated 27.08.2018, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief of extending the benefit of the orders passed in LA.O.P. No.2 of 2001 and in A.S. No.1671 of 2003. 6. Respondent No. 4 filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Complaining the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the said representation, dated 27.08.2018, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief of extending the benefit of the orders passed in LA.O.P. No.2 of 2001 and in A.S. No.1671 of 2003. 6. Respondent No. 4 filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. There is no much dispute about the factual aspects in respect of the assigned lands that were acquired to an extent of Acs.31-15 gts., and ex-gratia was paid at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre along with 30% solatium in accordance with G.O. Ms.No.1307, Revenue Assignment Department, dated 23.12.1993 and the said amount was stated to be on par with the patta lands acquired for the above project. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are also entitled for payment of compensation on par with the patta lands. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Collector, Vizianagaram and another Appellants. Vs. P. Peda Chinnayya and others, 1997 (1) ALT 498 (F.B.) has considered the same issue on a reference made and the same was answered by holding that the assignees of Government lands are also entitled for payment of compensation on par with the patta lands and other benefits if the lands are acquired without resuming the same in terms of the assignment conditions. The relevant paragraph reads as under: "The gist of our conclusion is that where the Government resorts to the provisions of the Act for acquisition of the patta lands without resorting to the terms of the grant for resumption, it is liable to pay compensation under the Act, but such compensation will be only the market value of the interest of the owner or the assignee of the land, subject to the clog. In such cases of acquisition, the claimant would also be entitled to consequential reliefs, such as those of solatium and interest etc., under the Act. In a case where the patta lands are resumed by the Government, the assignees cannot claim compensation under the Act, but can claim compensation equal to the market value of their interest in the land, subject to the clog. In a case where the patta lands are resumed by the Government, the assignees cannot claim compensation under the Act, but can claim compensation equal to the market value of their interest in the land, subject to the clog. In such cases, no solatium may be payable but interest may be claimed on the amount of compensation from the date of dispossession and till the date of payment of compensation. In a case where the assignees are dispossessed from their patta lands without resuming the lands in terms of the grant and/or initiation of proceedings under the Act, the Government may be directed to initiate proceedings under the Act and to pay compensation under the Act as indicated. This would be in conformity with the directions made by this Court in some of the cases of similar nature. The answers to the other incidental questions arising out of the order of reference are covered by the answers given by us to the questions specifically mentioned." 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, the same is binding on the respondents. But the respondents, instead of applying the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, applied G.O. Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 ignoring the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the action of the respondents in paying the ex-gratia in terms of the said Government Order even after the law declared by this Court on the very same aspect is totally illegal and arbitrary. 10. From the very fact that, all the petitioners herein are the assignees of the Government land shows that they are the landless poor people belonged to the lower strata of society. Due to their ignorance of law and may be also because of their poor financial status, the petitioners have not agitated their rights at the relevant point of time. However, in the year 2018 the petitioners having realized the injustice that was done to them, submitted a representation dated 27.08.2018 before the respondent No. 1 requesting for extension of benefits in respect of patta lands that were acquired for the same purpose at the relevant point of time. 11. However, in the year 2018 the petitioners having realized the injustice that was done to them, submitted a representation dated 27.08.2018 before the respondent No. 1 requesting for extension of benefits in respect of patta lands that were acquired for the same purpose at the relevant point of time. 11. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court referred to above also came up for consideration before Larger Bench of this Court in the case of LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda v. Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALD 451 (FB) wherein it was held at paragraph Nos. 108 and 109 as under:- "In the result, we hold that 'no compensation' clause, restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation in respect of the land resumed equivalent to the market value of the land, is unconstitutional. The 'no compensation clause' infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31-A of the Constitution. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed thereunder. The doctrine of 'unconstitutional conditions' applies in all its force. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land." 12. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land." 12. Thus, the legal position in this regard is very clear and categorical and the respondents are bound by the law laid down by this Court in the decision of the Full Bench as early as in the year 1997 and ought to have complied with the provisions of the Act, 1984 for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioners herein. In such an event the petitioners would have an opportunity of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation on par with the owners of the patta land which are acquired for the same purpose. Because of the illegality committed by the respondents, the petitioners are deprived of availing such remedy under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Though it is contended by the respondents that the petitioners were paid compensation on par with the patta land by issuing proceedings, dated 30.06.2005, the petitioners were deprived of benefit of seeking enhancement of compensation on par with the patta land holders. 13. Therefore, in order to undo the injustice that was caused to the petitioners, in the considered view of this Court, it would be apt to accede to the request made by the petitioners for payment of compensation in terms of the order passed in L.A.O.P. No.2 of 2001, dated 14.03.2002 as modified by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S. No.1671 of 2003, dated 05.06.2014. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith initiate necessary steps for payment of compensation in respect of the lands acquired from the petitioners and pay the compensation to the petitioners in terms of the order passed in L.A.O.P. No.2 of 2001, dated 14.03.2002 as modified by the judgment in A.S. No.1671 of 2003, dated 05.06.2014, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amounts that were already paid to the petitioners in terms of the proceedings, dated 30.06.2005 shall be adjusted. 15. The amounts that were already paid to the petitioners in terms of the proceedings, dated 30.06.2005 shall be adjusted. 15. However, considering the fact that the petitioners have not agitated their right till the year 2018 and to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the interest on the quantum of compensation that would be paid to them by virtue of this order till 27.08.2018 i.e., the date on which the petitioners have made their request for payment of compensation on par with the patta lands. The petitioners are entitled to claim interest on the compensation from 27.08.2018 till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.