Perumandla Srinivas, vs The Mandal Revenue Officer,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4938 Tel

        T HE HON'BL E SRI JUST ICE V.V.S.RAO
       WRIT PETITION Nos.1068 AND 1069 OF 2007
                DATED 29th JANUARY, 2007

Bet ween

Kuragayala Laxman

                                                ... Pet it ioner

                             AND

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar, and ot hers.

                                            .... Respondent s

T HE HON'BL E SRI JUST ICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.1068 AND 1069 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER:

The predecessors of t he pet it ioners in bot h t he writ pet it ions are allot t ed/assigned Government lands. It is st at ed t hat t hey have been depending on t he said lands and cult ivat ing t he same for t he last fort y years. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar (MRO), first respondent herein, init iat ed st eps for resumpt ion of t he lands in accordance wit h t he condit ions of assignment . A show cause not ices were issued calling upon t he pet it ioners t o explain as t o why t he lands should not be resumed for public purpose. The pet it ioners submit t ed explanat ions st at ing t hat t hey have been depending on t he said land. Aft er considering t he explanat ions submit t ed by t he pet it ioners, t he MRO passed orders on 23.09.2006 ordering resumpt ion of t he land for providing house sit es t o t he poor. The MRO also observed t hat all t he pet it ioners would be paid ex gratia/compensat ion at market value wit h 30% solat ium, and also compensat ion for t rees and st ruct ures as per t he orders of t he High Court . These proceedings of t he MRO are assailed in t he writ pet it ion.

Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner submit s t hat resumpt ion of land from t he pet it ioners, who was assigned lands, is arbit rary. He also cont ent s t hat some of t he pet it ioners have raised resident ial houses, and if t he lands are resumed, t hey will be deprived of t heir shelt er as well as livelihood. He placed reliance on t he int erlocut ory order, dat ed 01.12.2006 passed by t he Division Bench in W.A.M.P.No.2630 of 2006 in W.A.No.1257 of 2006.

The learned Assist ant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment ) submit s t hat before resuming t he land in t erms of condit ions of assignment , t he MRO issued show cause not ices, t hat all t he pet it ioners submit t ed explanat ions and t hat aft er considering explanat ions, t he impugned orders are passed. Therefore, he would urge t hat when proper and fair procedure is followed before cancelling t he pat t as and resuming t he land informing t he pet it ioners t hat t hey would be paid compensat ion at t he market rat e, no int erference is called for. He placed st rong reliance on t he decision of t he Full Bench of t his Court in L AO-cum- RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v [1] Mekala Pandu and a decision rendered by t his Court [2] in P.Mallaiah v Government of A.P .

The power of judicial review on administ rat ive decisions is rest rict ed t o examine t he quest ion whet her t he public aut horit y failed t o deal wit h t he issues fairly before arriving at a decision, which adversely burdens t he right s of t he cit izens. The Court is not concerned wit h t he decision it self. In t he const it ut ional Governance, Execut ive has t he power t o balance t he compet ing right s and int erest s before embarking on a programme, which perceives t o be in t he larger public int erest . In t he t wo cases on hand, t he land assigned t o t he pet it ioners, allegedly t hree t o four decades ago, is resumed for providing house sit es t o landless and poor homeless persons. The Court cannot sit in Judgment over t he good or bad of t he programme of dist ribut ion of house sit es.

The next quest ion would be whet her any right of t he assignees is violat ed. It is no gainsaying t hat t he St at e as a grant or can always deprive t he grant ee of t he benefit of t he land. When t he land is assigned as a grant by t he St at e, whet her or not t here is a condit ion in t he t erms of grant , t he St at e can always resume t he land from t he grant ee subject t o t he condit ions cont ained in t he order of grant (Calcut t a, Sout h Sat ara v [3] L .M.Deshpande a n d S.V.V.S.V.Wadia v St at e of [4] Sourasht ra ). In fact t he quest ion of payment of compensat ion t o t he assignees, whose land is resumed by t he Government , was considered by t his Court . The t hree Full Benches of t his Court in St at e of A.P. v [5] P.Peda Chinnayya , St at e of A.P. v Bondapalli [6] Sanyasi and Mekala Pandu (supra) have recognised t he principle t hat t he St at e,which assigns t he land can always resume t he land for public purpose. The quest ion, whet her t he claimant s are ent it led t o payment of compensat ion under t he provisions of Land Acquisit ion Act , 1894 when t he assigned lands are resumed by t he Government for public purpose, was considered in Mekala Pandu (supra).

I n Mekala Pandu (supra) while overruling Bondapalli Sanyasi (supra) held:

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 part 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 case 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.

The impugned order in t hese cases informs t he pet it ioners t hat t hey would be paid ex gratia/compenst ion at market value wit h 30% solat ium. Therefore, t he act ion of t he respondent s in issuing t he impugned order whereunder assignment is cancelled and t he land is resumed is in accordance wit h law laid down by t he Full Bench of t his Court in Mekala Pandu (supra). This needs lit t le clarificat ion in view of t he decision of t he Mekala Pandu (supra).

It is brought t o t he not ice t hat feeling aggrieved by Mekala Pandu (supra), t he St at e preferred an appeal before t he Supreme Court and obt ained int erim order of st ay of furt her payment of compensat ion. Therefore, t hough t he pet it ioner is ent it led t o claim compensat ion as per t he provisions of t he Land Acquisit ion Act including solat ium, addit ional compensat ion and int erest , t he Mandamus t hat shall issue t o t hat effect shall be enforceable subject t o t he Judgment of t he Supreme Court in appeal filed against Mekala Pandu (supra).

Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners brought t o t he not ice of t his Court t he int erlocut ory order passed by t he Division Bench of t his Court in W.A.M.P.No.2630 of 2006 in W.A.No.1257 of 2006. The writ pet it ions are being dismissed following t he t hree Full Bench decisions of t his Court referred t o hereinabove and t herefore, t he int erlocut ory order relied on by t he counsel is of no assist ance. The writ pet it ions are accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit . There shall be no order as t o cost s.

______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 29.01.2007.

pln

[1] 2004 (2) AL D 451 (FB of Seven Judges) [2] 2006 (3) AL D 148 [3] AIR 1964 SC 326 [4] AIR 1967 SC 340 [5] 1996 (2) AL D 1215 = 1997 (1) AL T 498 (FB of T hree Judges) [6] 2002 (2) AL D 1 = 2002 (1) AL T 543 (L B of Five Judges)