Telangana High Court

Kulwant Singh Chatwal, vs The Joint Collector, on 4 December, 2023

     THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                          AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                      WRIT APPEAL No.1232 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)

Heard Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellants.

2. Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader and

Dr. Juttukonda Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue (Assignment) for the respondents.

3. This intra Court appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 13.08.2008 passed in W.P. No.9672 of 2003 by the learned

Single Judge.

4. The appellants and the respondents herein are the writ

petitioners and the respondents, respectively, in the writ petition.

5. The appellants/petitioners filed the W.P. No.9672 of 2003

seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional

Officer, in F.No.Rc.B1/1144/2000, dated 12.11.2001 and to direct the

respondents to assign/issue pattas to the petitioners - ex-servicemen

for the land in Survey No.303, 663, 651, 348, 347 and 349 of

Jawaharnagar village/Malkaram, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy

district and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land.

HC, J & NVSK, J

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

6. The petitioners, who served the Indian Army, retired from the

service between 1946 and 1976. All of them are domiciled in Andhra

Pradesh and have been drawing pension for the service they have

rendered in the Indian Army. In order to rehabilitate the

Ex.Servicemen, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued

G.O.Ms.No.25, Revenue Department, dated 23.10.1952, by which it

assigned an extent of Acs.5,977-03 guntas in Jawaharnagar village to

the Department of Labour. The Government, later on, framed

operating guidelines in order to effectuate the purpose of

rehabilitation of Ex.Servicemen, vide G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue, dated

30.04.1963. The said G.O., laid down the eligibility criteria,

the extents for and the conditions subject to which the assignment of

agricultural land shall be made in favour of the Ex.Servicemen.

Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1573, Home

(Labour-IV) Department, dated 18.07.1966, in supersession of all the

previous orders and laid down conditions for the selection of

'Colonists' for implementation of its scheme and for establishment of

Co-operative Land Colonies for Ex.Servicemen.

7. Even before issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.743 and 1573,

a Co-operative Society, by name, Jawaharnagar Land Colonization

Co-operative Society (for short "the Society") was registered on

09.01.1958 and the above-mentioned extent of land was transferred in

favour of the Society. The said Society appeared to have allotted land HC, J & NVSK, J

to 149 Ex.Servicemen. In the wake of several allegations of

commissions and omissions against the Managing Committee of the

Society, the District Collector by proceedings dated 27.10.1968

superseded the Managing Committee and appointed a Co-operative

Sub-Registrar as Special Officer to manage the affairs of the Society.

8. On the proposals made by the District Collector, vide his letter

dated 01.04.1970, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.17, Revenue (Q)

Department, dated 05.01.1976 resuming the extent of Ac.5,977-03

cents from the Society and directed to dispose of the said land by way

of individual assignment to the Ex.Servicemen for whom the scheme

was originally intended on priority basis and that the balance land

available to be assigned to the other eligible landless poor persons of

the area.

9. In their affidavit, the petitioners averred that in the list prepared

by the Society consisting of eligible Ex.Servicemen, their names were

not included; that as the Society itself was disbanded on the

complaints made against its functioning, the said list had no sanctity;

and that the petitioners were put in possession of Ac.5.00 cents each

in the year 1974. Thereafter, the petitioners are in possession and

have been cultivating the lands and no one interfered with their

possession.

HC, J & NVSK, J

10. It is submitted that the petitioners, along with six others,

filed W.P. No.12607 of 1994 before this Court for appropriate

directions to dispose of the representation filed by them before the

District Collector for grant of assignment. The said Writ Petition was

disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.07.1994 with a direction

to the District Collector to dispose of the petitioners' representations.

The District Collector, vide his proceedings dated 20.09.1997 rejected

the said request of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed

W.P. No.6799 of 1999 before this Court for appropriate directions to

the respondents to assign the lands in their occupation in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.17, Revenue (Q) Department, dated 05.01.1976. The said

Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court by

judgment dated 13.08.1979 and the District Collector, Ranga Reddy

District, was directed to grant assignments to the petitioners in

respect of Acs.5.00 guntas each in their occupation. The said

judgment was questioned in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 1999 by the

respondents, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court

by order dated 29.12.1999, whereby the Division Bench substituted

the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with the direction to

the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for assignment,

in accordance with law, within a period of six months and accordingly

modified the order of the learned Single Judge.

HC, J & NVSK, J

11. In pursuance of the above mentioned Division Bench order,

respondent No.2 re-considered the request of the petitioners for

assignment and vide order dated 12.11.2001 rejected the same on the

following five grounds:

"(i) All the six persons will not come under the definition of demobilized Jawans and that they are not fulfilled the conditions for assignment of the land in the newly created village;

(ii) The five petitioners at Sl.No.1 to 5 were above the rank of Jawans;

(iii) The names of all the six persons are not found in the list of 149 original members of the Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Society;

(iv) Even if the request of the petitioners has to be considered for assignment of Government and under the rules of assignment of Government land to ExServicemen, the petitioners have not filed their petitions within 12 months from the date of discharge from service and routed through District Soldiers, Sailors & Airmen's Board for assignment of Government land as required under the rules relating to assignment of Government land to Ex-Servicemen; and

(v) there is a ban on assignment of Government land of the village to other than the Society members.

The petitioners at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 above will not come under the category of demobilized. Jawans and their names are also not included in the list of 149 members of the Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land Colonization Society and also they have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they have applied for assignment of Government land within a stipulated HC, J & NVSK, J

period of 12 months from the date of discharge through proper channel as prescribed and that there is a ban for assignment of Government members of the above society. Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for assignment of the Government land in their possession. The petitioner at Sl.No.6 although comes under the category of Jawan but will not come under the definition of demobilize Jawans also that his name is not found in the list of 149 members of Jawaharnagar Co-operative Land documentary evidence to show that he has applied for assignment of Government Land within a period of 12 months from the date of discharge through proper channel as prescribed and that there is a ban for assignment of Government land in Jawaharlal village for the persons other than 149 members of the above Society. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for assignment of Government lands in his possession".

12. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order of

respondent No.2 was dismissed by the respondent No.1. In addition

to the grounds on which respondent No.2 rejected the petitioners'

claim for assignment, respondent No.1 in his order added another

ground, viz., that the petitioners have not produced any documentary

evidence to the effect that they were actively employed in agriculture

before the War. These two orders are assailed in the writ petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

13. It was contended that the findings contained in judgment dated

13.08.1999 in Writ Petition No.6799 of 1999 having not been set aside

by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 1999, the two orders

passed by respondents No.2 and 1 on the basis of the reasons are HC, J & NVSK, J

contrary to the findings of the learned Single Judge and cannot be

sustained. The Division Bench merely substituted the direction

without disturbing the findings of the learned Single Judge and that

the findings are conclusive on the petitioners' entitlement for

assignment and therefore, the respondents No.l and 2 are bound by

the same. It was further submitted that all the six reasons given by

respondent No.2 and the additional reason given by respondent No.l

are based on misreading of G.O.Ms.No.1563, which was issued in

Supersession of all earlier G.Os., including G.O.Ms.No.743, and that,

at any rate, the petitioners satisfied all the conditions contained in the

said two G.Os., for grant of assignment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS/STATE IN THE WRIT PETITION:

14. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

(Assignments), supported the orders passed by the respondents

No.1 and 2. He relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in K.Anjana Devi and others Vs. Government of A.P 1

in support of his contention that by applying the doctrine of merger,

the judgment in Writ Petition No.6799 of 1999 had merged in the

order dated 29.12.1999 passed in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 1999

as such, none of the findings of the learned single Judge survive and,

therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 were not bound by any of those

findings.

2007(2) ALT 322=2007(4) ALD 297 HC, J & NVSK, J

15. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted

that the reasons contained in thế orders of respondents No.2 and 1

do not suffer from any error of fact of law warranting interference of

this Court and the alleged possession of the petitioners is wholly

unauthorised and illegal. He would further submit that in view of the

complete urbanization of Jawaharnagar, which falls within the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area there is no possibility

of agriculture being carried on in future and in the changed

circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of assignment

of the said land for agricultural purpose.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

16. The learned Single Judge had disagreed with the contentions of

the learned Senior Counsel made in respect of the findings of the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6799 of 1999 by referring the cases in

CTI Vs. M/s.Amritlal Bhogilal & Co 2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that if an appeal is provided against the order passed by

the Tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative

decision in law, whether it modifies or affirms the decision of the lower

authority and the decision of the original authority merges in the

appeal decision. In S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3

the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court endorsed the said view.

AIR 1958 SC 868

(1989) 4 SCC 582 HC, J & NVSK, J

17. The Division Bench, in K.Anjana Devi (1 supra), referred to

and relied upon the above mentioned Supreme Court judgments and

rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners therein that certain

findings of the High Court were not interfered by the Supreme Court

in Smt.Athia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P 4 and in State of

A.P. Vs. Audikesava Reddy 5 and, therefore, the then the State of

Andhra Pradesh was bound by those findings.

18. The learned Single Judge noted that the learned Single Judge

gave findings to the effect that the petitioners are eligible for grant of

assignments under various G.Os., referred to above, including

G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 05.01.1976. However, in the Writ Appeal,

the Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge by

passing the following order:

"After hearing both sides, we direct that the following directions be substituted in place of the direction issued by the learned single Judge in his order under appeal.

That the appellants will be at liberty to consider the decision of assignment in accordance with law within a period of six months from today.

The order under appeal is modified accordingly.

The Writ Appeal is disposed off above. There shall be no order as to cost".

AIR 1993 SC 2465

(2002) 1 SCC 227 HC, J & NVSK, J

19. The learned Single Judge while referring to K.Anjana Devi

(1 supra), observed that the only decision that was operative was the

order passed in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 1999, because the order of the

learned Single Judge got merged in the said order. The Division

Bench, while modifying the order and substituting the directions given

by the learned Single Judge did not specifically affirm the findings of

the learned Single Judge. Far from affirming and reiterating the said

findings, the Bench gave liberty to the respondents to consider the

petitioners' claims for assignment in accordance with law. If the

Division Bench intended the findings of the learned Single Judge to be

operative and acted upon, it would have directed that the claims of the

petitioners shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with

law and in the light of those findings. Instead, as already noted,

the Division Bench directed the respondents to consider

"in accordance with law", which necessarily means that the claims of

the petitioners are required to be considered in the light of the

statutory provisions, if any, and the executive instructions contained

in various G.Os., which constitute law and in view of the same,

the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel was rejected.

20. The learned Single Judge further noted that an extent of

Acs.5977.03 guntas situated in Jawaharnagar village was handed over

to the Labour Department for rehabilitation of Ex.Servicemen.

According to the eligibility criteria contained in G.O.Ms.No.743 dated

30.04.1963, all the Jawans including non-commissioned ranks of the HC, J & NVSK, J

three Armed Services and also non-combatants, but excluding officers

domiciled in Andhra Pradesh and serving in the Defense Forces of

India after their demobilisation, are eligible for assignment of land in

their own villages or elsewhere. Each Jawan is eligible for assignment

of Ac.2.50 Wet or Ac.5.00 Dry land, including the land already owned

by him. However, certain conditions were imposed on the said lines

and the applications have to be made in a proper form and the

procedure contemplated. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.1573, dated

18.07.1966, was issued in supersession of all previous orders.

21. On a perusal of the above two G.Os., the learned Single Judge

noted that the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.743 and 1573

shows that the conditions of eligibility are at variance between the two

G.Os., and observed that both the two G.Os., cannot stand side by

side. It was further noted that the resumption of land of Acs.5977.03

guntas of Jawaharnagar village shall be disposed of by way of

individual assignment to Ex.Servicemen for whom the scheme was

originally intended and in view of the same, the claims of the

petitioners were examined.

22. The learned Single Judge while considering the above two G.Os.,

on the 1st four grounds observed that "the fact that the petitioners are

Ex.Servicemen is not in dispute. Irrespective of whether they satisfy the

criteria contained in G.O.Ms.No.743, the petitioners are still eligible for

assignment by virtue of being Ex.Servicemen, who squarely fall within HC, J & NVSK, J

the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.1573, dated 18-7-1966. This ground of

rejection, therefore, pales into insignificance."

23. Further, it was observed that "the fact that the petitioners were

members of the Society is not in dispute. The further fact that they are

all Ex.Servicemen is also not in dispute. Therefore, whether their

names were included in the list sent by the Society or not is wholly

irrelevant to judge the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners for

assignment."

24. Further it was observed that "Keeping in view the paramount

purposes for which assignment is envisaged, viz., that all

Ex.Servicemen, subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.ms.No.1573,

are eligible for assignment; rejection of the petitioner's applications on

the ground of violation of a procedural condition frustrates the very

purpose for which the scheme is introduced."

25. As regards the ground No.5, the learned Single Judge observed

that "G.O.Ms.No.1122, Revenue Department, dated 29-6-1961,

the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that no vacant land in the

Greater Hyderabad City, including the Cantonment Area, within a belt

of 10 miles from the Municipal limits should be assigned or otherwise

disposed of until Government have assessed the requirements of

various departments for building accommodation in the city. Thus, a

ban was imposed on the assignments. However, the Government

issued G.O.Ms.No.1409, Revenue (Q) Department, dated 19-8-1978 HC, J & NVSK, J

after realizing that the blanket ban was creating hardship to the

landless poor persons, who were in occupation of the lands either on

the date of G.O.Ms.No.1122 or subsequent thereto. In the said G.O.,

the Government directed that the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.1122 be

lifted in respect of 176 villages covered by the ban as shown in

Annexure-I to the said G.O. However, with regard to the 190 villages,

which include Jawaharnagar village, the said G.O., continued the ban."

26. It was observed that "the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.17,

dated 5-1-1976, by which the entire land of Ac.5977-03 guntas was

resumed with the direction to dispose of the same through individual

assignment to the Ex.Servicemen. While rejecting the petitioners'

applications under ground No.5, respondent No.2 completely overlooked

these two orders of the Government. The general ban envisaged in

G.O.Ms.No.1122 and partially relaxed in G.O.Ms.No.1409 cannot be

made a ground to frustrate the very scheme, which provides for

assignment of land to Ex.Servicemen. These grounds of rejection, which

constitute the basis for the order of respondent No.2, thus, indicate a

total non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.2."

27. The learned Single Judge further observed that in the order of

the 1st respondent, while confirming the orders of the respondent No.2

failed to point out as to under which of the Government Orders the

requirement of dis-bandening from the Army of Nizam Government is

stipulated. From the analysis of the two G.Os., undertaken, it was

held that it is clear that no such requirement is found to be envisaged.

HC, J & NVSK, J

Further it was also observed that while considering the request for

grant of assignment, the authorities are bound to make a literal and

pragmatic approach rather than a rigid and dogmatic approach and

the respondents No.1 and 2 ought not to have rejected their claims on

hyper technical grounds and frustrate the very scheme, which was

intended to rehabilitate them. The learned Single Judge while

referring to the said G.Os., and orders passed by the respondents

No.1 and 2 held that the petitioners are eligible for grant of

assignment under the rehabilitation scheme for Ex.Servicemen

introduced by the State Government and the orders of the

respondents No.1 and 2 were set aside.

28. The learned Single Judge while considering various aspects,

observed that whether the petitioners are entitled to assignments of

the land, which are in their occupation and considering that due to

rapid urbanization, the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad

have grown by leaps and bounds and the Government had extended

the Municipal Corporation area to the areas, which were covered by as

many as about 12 Municipalities around the twin cities and

constituted Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and further

observed that since the land in occupation of the petitioners falls in

the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and also the

Metropolitan Development Authority, which is in the midst of

intensive urban activity and as such, it is not possible for the

petitioners to continue with the agriculture/horticulture in future.

HC, J & NVSK, J

Moreover, it is the stand of the respondents that this land is needed

for the purpose of undertaking various developmental activities and

the fact that due to the urbanization, the value of the lands has gone

up multifold, each acre costing in crores of rupees. While the intention

of the Government in preparing the scheme of rehabilitation was only

to see that after their retirement from service, the Ex.Servicemen will

have decent means of livelihood, such a scheme cannot be allowed to

become a windfall for the assignees. The lands having become part

and parcel of the Hyderabad Urban area, they can be better utilized

for various public purposes by the Government. On the other hand,

the learned Single Judge being conscious of the fact that the

petitioners are in possession of the lands in question at least for the

last 20 years, their claim that they were allotted the lands by the

Society in the year 1974, such an allotment was wholly unauthorized

because long before the purported allotments, the Managing

Committee of the Society was superseded and the Society itself has

become defunct. The petitioners cannot therefore claim any right to

be in possession of these plots until they are assigned through proper

means.

29. The learned Single Judge, while considering the circumstances,

balancing the individual interest of the petitioners with that of the

interest of the public at large and considering the scheme provides for

assignment of land either in the native place of the Ex.Servicemen or

anywhere else in the State has held in the interest of justice that the HC, J & NVSK, J

petitioners may be provided with alternative agricultural lands at the

places of their choice anywhere in the State and proposed two options

namely, (i) to direct the respondents to consider allotment of suitable

agricultural lands at the places of choice of the petitioners, or (ii) to

pay reasonable compensation to the petitioners in lieu of assignment

of the lands in their occupation to enable them to procure alternative

agricultural lands.

30. The learned Single Judge while considering the advance age of

the petitioners held that the second option appears to be better and

more advantageous to the petitioners. If they are paid the

compensation, that would give them an immediate opportunity to buy

alternative lands without depending upon any one and fixed

Rs.3,00,000/- per acre as compensation payable to the petitioners

which comes to Rs.15,00,000/- for each of the petitioners, which will

enable them to purchase alternative lands with that money.

Accordingly, directed the respondents to pay the petitioners sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- each towards compensation. Further, also held that

the petitioners are entitled to payment of the cost of development they

have made over the years and directed the respondent No.1 to call for

the reports from the Horticulture, Agriculture, R&B and Irrigation

departments on the basis of which he shall fix the value for the

developments made by the petitioners over the lands in their

respective occupation. Further, directed the respondent No.1 to

complete the said exercise within three months from the date of HC, J & NVSK, J

receipt of a copy of the order and accordingly, the writ petition was

allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present

appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

31. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants would submit

that the learned Single Judge has clearly held that the

petitioners/appellants are eligible for grant of assignment under the

rehabilitation scheme for Ex-servicemen and had set aside the

impugned orders in the writ petition and having set aside the same

ought not to have gone into the other aspects such as the land falls in

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and that it is not

possible for the appellants to continue agriculture. It is further

submitted that the petitioners/appellants are 70-80 years old cannot

be moved from the agricultural land and the Ex-Servicemen who were

allotted patta are still continuing with agriculture, therefore, mere

compensation in lieu of assignment of patta on the ground that it is

an intensive urban area is incorrect and prayed to set aside the

impugned order with a direction to the respondents to grant pattas to

the petitioners/appellants within the reasonable period.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

32. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, while denying

the averments of the petitioners/appellants, counter affidavit has been

filed. It is submitted that the petitioners/appellants have no legal

right to seek a writ of mandamus as they are admittedly encroachers.

HC, J & NVSK, J

33. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents, while reiterating the counter averments, submitted that

in a similar case that pertains to the Jawaharnagar village,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5887-5890 of

2002 on 10.11.2009 had categorically held that the respondents

therein are illegal encroachers on the Government Land and

accordingly held that they have no rights to remain on the said land

unless there is a scheme by the Government or some law made for

regularization. He would further submit that no land is available for

assignment and the petitioners/appellants can be considered under

the Government policy for 2 BHK. Since the petitioners/appellants

are also similarly situated persons this appeal is not maintainable and

the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court needs to be

followed.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:

34. This Court on 26.09.2008 in WAMP. No.2396 of 2008 in

W.A. No.1232 of 2008 passed interim direction as prayed for;

wherein sought a direction to the respondents not to evict the

petitioners/appellants and not to dispossess the appellants from their

agricultural land situated in Survey Nos.303, 663, 651, 348, 347 and

349 respectively, situated at Jawahar Nagar/Malkaram, Shameerpet

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending W.A. No.1232 of 2008 on the

file of the High Court.

HC, J & NVSK, J

35. We have gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble Suprme

Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5887-5890 of 2002 on 10.11.2009, which

reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 16.6.2000.

The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.

                  Admittedly,    the     respondents    are   illegal
         encroachers     on     the    government   land.     Hence,

ordinarily, they have no right to remain on the said land unless there is a scheme by the government or some law made for regularization.

It is not for this Court to make such a scheme or law for regularization. It is only the concerned authorities or the concerned Legislature which can make such a scheme or law.

On the facts of the case, we substitute the impugned judgment of the High Court by this order which we are passing today.

We permit the respondents to make a representation within four weeks from today to the State Government praying for regularization and it is up to the State.

Government to accept the representation or not. If they accept the representation, the Government can fix the terms on which regularization will be done. If such a representation is moved within the aforesaid time of four weeks, the State Government shall decide HC, J & NVSK, J

the said representation within three months' from the date of filing the said representation in accordance with law.

Till the disposal of the representation by the State Government, respondents shall not be dispossessed from the land on which they are in possession.

                 The   Appeals   are    disposed   of   accordingly.
         No costs."

36. Since the learned Special Government Pleader brought to the

notice of this Court that the similar subject matter of this appeal has

already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid order and also having gone through the said order,

it is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically found

the respondents therein as encroachers of the land and liberty was

given to the respondents therein to make representation praying for

regularisation and it was left up to the State Government to accept the

representation or not within the stipulated period.

37. At this stage, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted

that if the petitioners/appellants make a representation for providing

them alternative land anywhere in the State, other than the urban

agglomeration, the respondents are ready to consider the same.

38. Admittedly the State has not preferred any appeal against the

impugned order.

HC, J & NVSK, J

39. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has categorically

observed that balancing of the individual interest of the petitioners

with that of the interest of the public at large and held that the

interest of justice would be met, if the petitioners are provided with

alternative agricultural land at the places of their choice anywhere in

the State and proposed two options as narrated hereinabove and

thereby opted and directed to fix compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- per

acre payable to the petitioners which comes to Rs.15,00,000/- for

each of the petitioners which enable them to purchase alternative

lands with that money in lieu of assignment of the lands in occupation

of the petitioners situated in Jawaharnagar, we do not find any reason

to take a different view and we wish to subscribe the same.

40. However, the petitioners/appellants are not willing to take

compensation as directed by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order. Admittedly, the possession of the petitioners/

appellants over the subject land is not assigned through proper

means.

41. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned

Special Government Pleader that if the petitioners/appellants make a

representation for providing them alternative land anywhere in the

State other than urban agglomeration and also taking into

consideration the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal Nos.5887-5890 of 2002 on 10.11.2009, we deem it appropriate HC, J & NVSK, J

to direct the petitioners/appellants to make a representation for

providing them alternative land anywhere in the State other than the

urban agglomeration, if so desired, within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the State Government and

thereafter, it is for the State Government to consider the same and

pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date

of filing such representation in accordance with law. It is made clear

that till the disposal of the representation by the State Government,

if submitted by the petitioners/appellants, they shall not be

dispossessed from the land on which they are in possession.