Telangana High Court
Mondi Pouthala Kondanna, S/O. ... vs The Special Collector L.A. Bheema ... on 8 March, 2022
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 13483 of 2015
ORDER:
Seeking to declare the order dated 20.02.2014 in
proceedings No.B/283/2008 passed by respondent No.2-Special
Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit P.J.P., Gadwal, as
arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same and
direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation as per the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the
petitioners houses and open land in survey No.518 situated at
Anugonda (Village), Makthal (Mandal), Mahabubnagar District,
together with all consequential statutory benefits on par with the
other owners of Anugonda (Village) acquired for the same
purpose in Award No.34/2011 dated 10.11.2011 and Award
No.35/2011 dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned
Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area
Development for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
pattadars of 282 houses, who received the compensation under
protest, have approached the Civil Court for determination of the
market value. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, after
conducting a detailed enquiry has passed judgment and decree
dated 19.03.2013 in LAOP No.35 of 2012 & batch enhancing the
compensation by one time more than the compensation awarded
by the LAO apart from granting all consequential statutory
benefits. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the owners of the
land acquired under the very same award, are also entitled for
the compensation amounts on par with the claimants in LAOP
Nos.35 of 2012. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Larger
Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others vs.
Mekala Pandu and others1. Learned counsel has also stated
that the above judgment of this Court has also been upheld by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.9317-
9321 of 2012 dated 04.08.2014.
The above said position is not denied by the learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, who has fairly
conceded that the order of the Larger Bench of this Court is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
Heard. Perused the record.
1 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)
The relevant portion of the judgment of the larger Bench of
this Court in Mekala Pandu case (referred supra), is as under:
"109. 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."
Having regard to the above settled proposition of law, the
impugned order dated 20.02.2014 passed by respondent No.2 is
without any legal basis and unsustainable.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2014 is set
aside. The official respondents are directed to pass necessary
orders for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, to the competent authority, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
reference being made, the competent authority (Tribunal) shall
pass necessary orders duly taking into account the judgment
and decree dated 19.03.2013 passed in LAOP No.35 of 2012 and
batch and any other material that may be placed by the
petitioners. The Tribunal shall endeavor to complete the entire
exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of the reference from the
LAO.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if
any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J
08.03.2022
sur
