Telangana High Court
The Govt.Of Ap By Secy.Irrigation ... vs V.Ramaswamy, Karimnagar Another on 12 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 239 of 2008
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government
Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellants and Mr. V.Satyam
Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order
dated 05.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing
W.P.No.27983 of 1995 filed by the respondents as the writ
petitioners.
3. Respondents had filed the related writ petition assailing
conditions (a), (b) and (d) of Para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.1307
dated 23.12.1993 of the Revenue (Assignment-I) Department,
Government of Telangana, as being contrary to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as violative of their fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides
being violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
::2::
4. Learned Single Judge perused the impugned conditions and
noted that by the aforesaid conditions, the State Government had
ordered payment of only ex gratia amount to the assignees while
clarifying that the assignees would not be entitled to claim benefits
under Sections 28-A, 23(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter). Learned Single Judge relied
upon and referred to a Full Bench (7-Judge) decision of this Court
in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu1 wherein it was
held as follows:
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,
2004 2 ALD 451
::3::
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.
5. Following the aforesaid decision, learned Single Judge held
that respondents would be entitled to claim compensation as and
when their lands are resumed for public purpose. When it was
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the
Government had preferred appeal before the Supreme Court
against the decision rendered in Land Acquisition Officer v.
Mekala Pandu (supra), learned Single Judge clarified that
mandamus issued would be subject to result of the civil appeal
pending before the Supreme Court.
6. We have been informed at the bar that the civil appeal
preferred by the State against the decision of this Court in Land
Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu (supra) has since been
dismissed.
::4::
7. That being the position, we see no reason to entertain the
present appeal. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 13.10.2022
LUR/SUS
