Madde Ramaiah vs The Special Collector, Land ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7848 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7848 AP
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Madde Ramaiah vs The Special Collector, Land ... on 14 October, 2022

     HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

             WRIT PETITION No. 6666 OF 2009


ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner and Smt. V. Padmaja, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

2. The Writ Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 and the father of the

Writ Petitioner No.3 are the original assignees of the lands

situated at Gudavolu Village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore

District. The lands were assigned by the Tahsildar of an extent

of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.453/2 in favour of Writ Petitioner No.1

vide F.Dis.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978; Ac.0.46 cents in

Sy.No.450/1 and Ac.1.29 cents in Sy.No.449/4 in favour of Writ

Petitioner No.2 vide D.Dis,.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978;

Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.451/1 in favour of father of the Writ

Petitioner No.3 vide F.Dis.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978;

and, Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No.447/2B2 in favour of Writ Petitioner

No.4 vide F.Dis,.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978.

3. It is submitted by Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned

Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the above lands were

sought to be acquired by the Official Respondents, as the same

would be submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu

Ganga Project. In that process, the Respondent No.2 has

acquired Patta lands and passed Award No.6 & 9/TGP/91 dated

09.03.1991 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. The Genuineness Certificate for the CJSF/DKT holder

that was issued by the Tahsildar, Rapur vide Lr.No.597/07

dated 23.10.2009, was submitted before the Respondent No.2.

However, on the ground that the land of the Writ Petitioners is a

non-saleable land as it was subject to the condition of in-

alienability, the Competent Authority paid only exgratia but not

the just compensation. The stand of the Official Respondents,

as reiterated in the Counter Affidavit, is also that they have paid

exgratia and that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for just

compensation because the land is an assigned land and it

cannot be subject to any sale.

5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has cited a

Judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Court (Coram of

Hon'ble Seven Judges) and submitted that the stand of the

Official Respondents that the Writ Petitioners are only entitled

to exgratia in the event of acquisition of the assigned land and

that the assignees are not entitled for the just compensation, is

no more res integra in view of the said Judgment in Land

Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division,

Hyderabad and Others (2004 (2) ALT 546 (L.B.)).

6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners referred to

Para Nos.110 & 111 of the above mentioned Judgment, which

are usefully reproduced hereunder:-

" 110. 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 there under. The doctrine of „unconstitutional conditions‟ applies in all its force.

111. 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".

7. It is to the knowledge of this Court that this Judgment

was carried in an Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

After leave being granted in the Special Leave Petition, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Civil Appeal

by Order dated 04.08.2014 (in Civil Appeal No.7904 of 2012 and

Batch) and confirm the Larger Bench decision of this Court.

8. In this view of the matter, the submission made by the

learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has to be sustained.

The contention of the Official Respondents that the Writ

Petitioners are only entitled to exgratia, is no more res integra

and that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for just compensation

as full owners with all consequential benefits, as held by the