Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 865 (TS)

Pawar Suresh v. State of Telangana

2024-11-26

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. Since, the lis involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 8 in WP.No.25016 of 2024 and respondents No.1 to 7 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.25016 of 2024 and for respondent No.8 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and perused the record. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were granted assignment pattas by the respondents-authorities as part of welfare measure; that the respondents-authorities claiming that the said assigned lands are required for setting up of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) for public purposes, have resumed the aforesaid assignment pattas granted in their favour; that the authorities while resuming the aforesaid land had paid ex-gratia amount in a sum @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and @ Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of fallow lands; that the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- per acre in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders; and that the said action of the respondents-authorities is clearly discrimination and contrary to the law laid by this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O. Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others vs. Mekala Pandu and others , 2004 (2) ALT 546 (LB). 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’s case (1 supra) had held that even assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount at the same rate as paid to the patta holders, and that since, the respondents- authorities have not paid the ex-gratia amount on par with the patta holders, the authorities are to be directed to pay the difference of amount to the petitioners in respect of the lands resumed from them. 5. In support of the aforesaid contention, counsel for petitioners had also relied on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court dt.03.01.2023 in W.A.No.677 of 2022, and a recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023. 6. 5. In support of the aforesaid contention, counsel for petitioners had also relied on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court dt.03.01.2023 in W.A.No.677 of 2022, and a recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General contends that the petitioners are assignment patta holders; that on the authorities initiating resumption proceedings, have participated in the said proceedings and agreed to receive the ex-gratia amount in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and fallow lands, respectively; and that the petitioners have also received the amounts during the year 2016 itself. 7. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that as the decision of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’s case (1 supra) was holding the field even on the date when the resumption proceedings were initiated by the respondents, it is not open for the petitioners to contend of becoming aware of the decision now, after lapse of eight years, to approach this Court claiming payment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of eight years, even if this Court were to hold the petitioners are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with private patta holders, they are not entitled for payment of interest on the difference of amount payable to the petitioners. 9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 10. This Court in a recent decision in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023, while rejecting the challenge to the resumption proceedings, however taking note of the decision of the larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’s case (supra) held that the petitioners therein, who are assignment patta holders, are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with patta holders in their respective villages @ Rs.5,65,000/- per acre, and that the respondents-authorities have to pay the differential amount to the petitioners therein. 11. 11. This Court in the aforesaid decision, apart from holding that the petitioners therein who are assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with private patta holders of the respective villages, also directed the respondents to pay the differential amount with accrued interest by excluding the amount received by the petitioner in respect of their lands situated in their respective villages, which were procured/acquired for the purpose of setting up of NIMZ, Zaheerabad, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 12. Petitioners being assignment patta holders and their lands, having been resumed by the respondents- authorities in the year 2016, which period of time is in close proximity to the period of 9 th respondent requisitioning the lands for the purpose of setting up of NIMZ, would squarely be covered by the aforesaid decision. 13. As the fact of the respondents-authorities paying a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- per acre, irrespective of the nature of land, in respect of the lands acquired from the patta holders is not in dispute and also the order of this Court, dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023, having attained finality, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities cannot adopt a different yardstick while dealing with the case of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the respondents-authorities that the difference in rate fixed per acre is depending on the nature of land, is not brone out from the reading of the above judgment and accordingly the contention in this regard is rejected. 14. Though on behalf of the respondents it is further contended that the petitioners having received the ex-gratia amount in the year 2016 are not entitled to file the present writ petition after a delay of 8 years and on account of delay and latches the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief, it is to be noted that while acquiring the lands, a duty is cast on the respondents-authorities to pay the compensation/ex-gratia as per the law. Since the decision of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’s case (supra) was holding the field from the year 2004, the respondents- authorities cannot plead ignorance of the said decision while making payment of ex-gratia amount at a different rate from that of the amount paid to the patta holders. 15. Since the decision of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’s case (supra) was holding the field from the year 2004, the respondents- authorities cannot plead ignorance of the said decision while making payment of ex-gratia amount at a different rate from that of the amount paid to the patta holders. 15. The respondents-authorities having failed to implement and enforce the law laid down by this Court, are precluded from taking the plea of delay and latches in seeking to deny the payment of ex-gratia amount to the petitioners on par with patta holders on the ground of delay and latches. 16. This Court in W.P.No.8603 of 2024, dt.19.11.2024, while rejecting a similar contention urged on behalf of respondents, had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2020) 2 SCC 569 wherein it was observed as under: “10.7 The contention advanced by the State of delay and latches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. 12. The State has submitted that in 2008 it had initiated acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land owner viz. Shri Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction given by the High Court in C.W.P.No.1192 of 2004. The State initiated acquisition only in the case where directions were issued by the High Court, and not in the case of other land owners whose lands were compulsorily taken over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the present land owner has been driven to move the Court in their individual cases for redressal.” 17. As a consequence, the present land owner has been driven to move the Court in their individual cases for redressal.” 17. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.677 of 2022 (speaking through the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Sri Ujjal Bhuyanm as His Lordships then was) took note of the decision of this Court in Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddy District v. B. Narayan Swamy , 2022 (6) ALT 262 (D) (TS) examined the impact of the law laid down by the larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu ’ case (1 supra) with regard to the claim of compensation by assignees of Government land and held that assignees of government land are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits at par with the owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands were taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant and notwithstanding the fact that such said resumption is for public purposes. Hence, the legal position is that assignees of government land are entitled to compensation on par with patta-holders. 18. Thus, the petitioners herein, who are assignment patta holders, are also entitled to payment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to patta-holders. 19. Insofar as the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, as noted herein above, the Apex Court in Vidya Devi ’s case(2 supra) had considered the aspect of delay and latches holding that condonation of delay is the judicial discretion of the Court, more particularly, when it deals with depriving a citizen of his constitutional right. 20. Though on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director & Another v. K. Thangappan and Another , (2006) 4 SCC 322 and S.S. Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Others , (2009) 2 SCC 479 in support of their contention that delay defeats equity, it is to be noted that the said decisions deal are in relation to service law and it does not relate to land acquisition matters. 21. 21. On the other hand having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in Vidya Devi ’s case (supra) on the aspect of delay and latches, when it comes to breach of fundamental rights and constitutional rights, which principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court again in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 508 and the recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023, dt.06.06.2024, the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the aspect of delay and latches, would not advance the case of the respondents. 22. In view of the discussion made as above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, whose assignment patta lands were resumed by the respondents-authorities, are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to the land acquired from the patta holders along with accrued interest therein, after deducting the amount of ex-gratia amount already received by the petitioners in the year 2016. 23. Since, this Court has now held that the petitioners being eligible to receive the difference of ex-gratia amount along with accrued interest thereon, the respondents-authorities are directed to make the aforesaid payment within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. Subject to the above observation and direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 25. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.