Telangana High Court

B.Kanakaiah, vs The Secretary To Govt Of A.P., on 28 March, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



            WRIT APPEAL No.2334 of 2005

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 27.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.21823 of 2001.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellants/writ petitioners, who were owners of the

land of an extent of Acs.9.20 guntas in Survey No.110

situated at Gajulapuram Village, came up before this

Court in the matter of grant of compensation. It was

stated by the appellants/writ petitioners that one

P.Narsaiah, the father of the appellant No.3/writ

petitioner No.3, was the assignee of the land and the

appellants No.1 and 2/writ petitioners No.1 and 2

purchased Acs.5.00 of land each from the assignee

under registered sale deeds dated 24.06.1970 and
                                            2




30.12.1974.             The         land        was     acquired            by     the

respondents for the purpose of laying Broad Gauge

Railway Line and the respondents took possession of

the land on 10.10.1980. An award was passed on

20.03.1982. However, in respect of the assigned land

and in respect of the land of patta holders, two

different rates were arrived at by the Land Acquisition

Officer. A writ petition i.e., W.P.No.9267 of 1993,

claiming compensation at par was preferred. The said

writ petition was finally disposed of on 02.09.1997 and

the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as

under:-

"In the instant cases, no condition of resumption or acquisition without paying compensation is forthcoming. As such, the principle laid down in the above decision applies to the cases on hand. Hence, we hold the petitioners in all the writ petitions are entitled for compensation.

            We      direct           the        petitioners         to      give
     representations           to     the       authorities        concerned

without two months from the date of receipt of this order seeking compensation and on receipt of such

representations, the authorities shall pass orders awarding compensation within three months thereafter.

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs."

Thereafter, an SLP was preferred in the matter

and the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP No.1206 of 1999,

dated 10.12.1999, is reproduced as under:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State shall pay compensation to the respondents, for resuming the land which was assigned to them, according to GO.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to accept compensation under the said G.O. and does not now claim compensation under any other provision of law. In view of this agreement between the parties this Special Leave Petition does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly."

Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993, was brought to

the notice by the State Government and the said

Government Order reflects that compensation was paid

at market value. The appellant No.1/writ petitioner

No.1 has received Rs.5,623/- for Acs.3.44 guntas. The

appellant No.2/writ petitioner No.2 has received

Rs.5,185/- for Acs.3.22 guntas and the appellant

No.3/writ petitioner No.3 has received Rs.3,067/- for

Acs.2.04 guntas. The appellants/writ petitioners again

came up before this Court stating that they have not

been paid the market value and the issue before the

learned Single Judge was in respect of the market

value. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the

writ petition i.e., W.P.No.21823 of 2001, and the

relevant portion of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

"11. A reading of above referred G.O. gives no room for any doubt that the petitioners are entitled to only market value as exgratia. They are not entitled to market value as fixed by the Civil Courts on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer - 4th respondent in the Award proceedings NO.A336/81, dated 20-3-1982 acquisitioned the land into two categories and they are:

1) Dry Dubba Chalka II) Dry lands mixed with black soil Survey Nos. 87,88,89, 101,102,103,104 and 111 are under 'A' category. Survey Nos. 97,98 and 99 are under Category 'B'. Market value of 'A' category land has been fixed at Rs. 1,270/- and 'B' category land has been fixed at Rs.1,590/-. The land of the petitioners is in Survey No.110. Since the land of the petitioners is falling nearby 'A' Category land, the 4th respondent is justified in taking the market value at Rs. 1,270/- per acre. The total amount payable to the petitioners have been arrived at Rs.13,875/- which includes market value plus 15% solatium. Exgratia for assigned land came to be granted under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993.

The Government took possession of the land on 10- 10-1980 for formation of new railway bridge from Bibinagar to Nadigudem. Till the Government issuing G.O.Ms.No. 1307 Revenue Assignment Department, dated 23-12-1993, payment of compensation to the assigned lands was not permissible. For the first time, the compensation to the assigned lands by way of ex-gratia came to be granted under G.O.Ms.No. 1307, dated 23-12-1993. The petitioners became entitled to ex-gratia on the issuance of G.O.Ms. No.1307 dated 23-12-1993 and the amount payable to the petitioners has become due as on that date. Since the possession of the lands has been taken over by the

Government in the year 1980 itself i.e. on 10-10- 1980 and the amount of ex-gratia payable as per G.O.Ms.No. 1307 has not been paid till 14-8-2001, the petitioners are entitled to interest at least from the date on which ex-gratia has become payable to them.

12. In view of the above discussion I find the petitioners are entitled to claim interest @ Rs. 9% from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms. NO. 1307 Revenue (Assignment -I) Department, dated 23-12-1993 to the date of payment i.e. 14-8-2001.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of G.O.Ms. No. 1307 i.e. from 23-12-1993 to the date of payment (14-8-2001) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."

Before this Court the solitary question which

remains to be answered is in respect of the market

value. The issue is whether the assigned land and the

private patta land will have the same market value or

not.

A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of LAO -

cum - RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda,

Hyderabad, and others v. Mekala Pandu and others1

in paragraph 109 therein has held 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."

2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)

Meaning thereby, it has been held that in respect

of the assigned land and the patta land, the market

value has to be the same.

In the light of the aforesaid, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the appellants/writ petitioners

are certainly entitled for the same market value which

has been fixed in respect of the patta land and

therefore, the respondents are directed to recalculate

the compensation in respect of the appellants/writ

petitioners also by paying them the market value

which has been paid to the holders of patta land, as