Heard The Learned Counsel For The vs Mekala Pandu Reported In 2004 (2)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3414 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                 WRIT PETITION NO.8855 of 2008

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The prayer in the writ

petition is as follows:

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification in Ref.G3/1948/07, dated 21.03.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and published in Eenadu daily, dated 24.03.2008 resuming the lands assigned in Sy.No.404/2B an extent of Ac.3.29 cents, Sy.No.407/2B an extent of Ac.2.50 cents, Sy.No.407/2-A an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.407/3-A, an extent of Ac.2.50 cents Sy.No.407/3B an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.407/4 an extent of Ac.0.96cents of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal and District on the alleged ground that the same is required for providing house sites to the beneficiaries under Rajeev Swagruha Housing scheme, without following the due process of law as illegal, contrary to the principles laid down in the case of LAO cum RDO Chevella, Domalaguda Vs.Mekala Pandu reported in 2004 (2) ALD 451 and violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in so far as the lands in Sy.No.404/2B an extent of Ac.3.29 cents, Sy.No.407/2B an extent of Ac.2.50 cents, Sy.No.407/2-A an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.407/3-A, an extent of Ac.2.50 cents Sy.No.407/3B an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and Sy.No.407/4 an extent of Ac.0.96cents of Chinna Chowk Revenue Village, Kadapa Mandal and District, belonging to the petitioners respectively and pass...."

2. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 it is

agreed that for the lands and the extents mentioned, each of the

writ petitioners' were assigned the same vide DKT pattas. It is

also admitted that possession of the lands were taken over as they were identified for Rajeev Swagruha Housing project. It is

also admitted that the Ex-gratia proposals were also sent and the

same is awaiting approval.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that

pursuant to the counter filed and in hearing dated 11.08.2011,

this Court noted that as the judgment in AIR 2004 (A.P) 250

(Mekala Pandu case) was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India and the possession of the petitioner should be

protected.

4. Learned Government Pleader also agrees that the

challenge mutated by the State to the decision reported in the

case of Lao-Cum-Revenue Divisional vs Mekala Pandu And

Ors1 is dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the

judgment continues to hold the field.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out

that in the very same village for the neighbouring land,

W.P.No.19833 of 2015 was allowed and the respondents were

directed to pay the compensation by deducting the Ex-gratia

paid. Learned counsel also relies upon the orders passed by the

AIR 2004 (AP) 250 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.No.2225 to 2227 of 2020,

wherein, the earlier order of Mekala Pandu case was also

considered and a direction was issued to the respondent-State to

pay compensation for the petitioners therein in accordance with

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He prays for a similar order.

6. Learned Government Pleader argues in line with what

is stated with the counter but however she also agrees that the

challenge against Mekala Pandu case ended long ago by the

dismissal with the State's challenge.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion

that, keeping the writ petition pending is not called for. In view of

the fact that Mekala Pandu case judgement now holds the field,

the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 minus the Ex-gratia, if any, already paid.

8. All the other issues about the valuations,

compensation payable etc., are all left open to be decided in

accordance with the said Act.

9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the respondents to take all necessary actions to

complete the acquisition as per the 1894 Act and complete the process within a period of three (03) months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending

shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Date: 13.07.2023 RKS/NKA