IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20346 and 22107 of 2002 Between: Bandaru Narayana & others. … Petitioners (in WP.No.20346 of 2002) Karam Venkateswarlu & others. … Petitioners (in WP.No.22107 of 2002) AND The District Collector, Khammam & others. … Respondents (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the petitioners : Sri R. Kameswara Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt. V. Uma Devi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20346 and 22107 of 2002 COMMON ORDER:- These two writ petitions are ﬁled for setting aside order dated 23.04.2002 passed by the District Collector, Khammam, whereby he directed payment of market value at Rs.3,200/- per acre in addition to 15% of the amount calculated on the market value while holding that the petitioners are not entitled for interest or additional market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. For the purpose of respondent No.3 – Company, the assigned lands of the petitioners were taken possession in the year 1976. The petitioners gave their consent for taking the lands subject to the right to receive compensation and the further right to approach the appropriate Court, if they are not satisﬁed with the ﬁxation of quantum of compensation. One of the members of the petitioners’ family was also provided with employment in addition to the payment of compensation. In the year 1989, formal resumption orders were passed. As compensation was not paid, the petitioners ﬁled O.S.No.165 of 1992 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, which was subsequently withdrawn, as they wanted to pursue their remedy before respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 considered the claims of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 and ﬁxed compensation as mentioned above. At the hearing, Sri Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as evident from the proceedings of respondent No.1, market value of the assigned lands of the petitioners was arrived at on the basis of Award No.9 of 1986 dated 30.11.1986 pertaining to the private patta lands, which were also acquired for the same purpose. He submitted that the persons, who are aggrieved by the ﬁxation of market value, got the issue referred to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Eventually, this Court in A.S.No.308 of 1994 and batch ﬁxed the market value of the said private lands at Rs.37,500/- per acre by its judgment dated 19.06.2001. The learned counsel submitted that as the petitioners’ lands are similar to the lands for which market value was ﬁxed at Rs.37,500/- per acre, the petitioners are also entitled to the same market value. He also submitted that though possession was taken in the year 1976, the lands were resumed in the year 1989 and compensation was paid in the year 2002. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are entitled to payment of interest for depriving the possession of the lands to them apart from 30% solatium as against 15%, which was granted by application of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that since a member of each of the petitioners’ family was provided with employment, there is no justiﬁcation for the petitioners to claim any interest for the delayed payment. They also submitted that the petitioners are only entitled to payment of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 and that therefore they cannot equate themselves with the private pattadars in whose cases compensation has been enhanced to Rs.37,500/- per acre. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the understanding arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.3, which was reduced to writing, a copy of which is ﬁled by respondent No.3, the petitioners agreed to part with the land on payment of compensation as speciﬁed by the Government. They reserved their right to approach the competent Court, if they are not satisﬁed with the quantum of compensation so ﬁxed. Respondent No.3 agreed to provide employment for one of the members of the pattadar/occupant subject to their names being recorded in the pahani/pattadar passbook. While ﬁxing the market value, the District Collector purported to follow G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. The said G.O. provides that in respect of the assigned lands resumed for the projects, compensation shall be treated as ex-gratia, the assignees would not be entitled to seek reference under Section 18 or 28-A of the Act, the amount equivalent to 15% of the lands resumed prior to 30.04.1982 and 30% after that date on the market value payable under Section 23(1) of the Act may be considered for being included in the total compensation ex-gratia amount payable as solatium and the assignees are not entitled for interest or additional market value under the Act. A ﬁve Judges Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bondapalli Sanyasi and others[1] held that where the assigned lands are acquired under the provisions of the Act, the assignees are entitled to compensation under the Act and if they are resumed by invoking the conditions of the assignment, they are only entitled to the payment of value as ﬁxed by the Government. Later, the said judgment was reviewed by a seven Judges Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala Pandu and others[2], wherein this Court held that irrespective of whether the land was resumed or acquired, the assignee is entitled to payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that the said judgment in Mekala Pandu (2 supra) is the subject matter of a civil appeal before the Supreme Court and the same is suspended. Thus, as things stand today, the judgment of ﬁve Judges Bench in Bondapalli Sanyasi (1 supra) holds the field. According to the said judgment, the assignees are entitled to ﬁxation of market value as ﬁxed by the Government. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993, as noted above, laid down the criteria for payment of compensation. In the instant case, on par with the patta lands, compensation was ﬁxed, but this Court enhanced the same to Rs.37,500/- per acre. In my opinion, since the lands of the petitioners are assigned lands, the beneﬁt of the judgment of this Court in the abovementioned batch of appeals pertaining to private pattadars cannot be extended to the petitioners unless the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of this Court in Mekala Pandu (2 supra). Till then, the petitioners would be entitled to payment of market value in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. It is signiﬁcant to note that even in O.S.No.165 of 1992 ﬁled by the petitioners, they have shown the market value of the land as Rs.3,200/- per acre though they have claimed all other statutory beneﬁts payable under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, even according to the petitioners, the market value prevailing at the time of resumption was Rs.3,200/- per acre. I have noticed the same from the order of the District Collector, who, while purporting to apply G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993, had provided 15% of the amount towards solatium over the ex-gratia obviously treating the date of resumption as prior to 30.04.1982. Admittedly, the formal resumption orders passed in both these cases were in the year 1989 and according to the said G.O., the petitioners are entitled to 30% of the market value as solatium. The District Collector, accordingly, committed an error in restricting solatium amount only to 15% instead of awarding 30%. While deciding this case, the fact that one member of each of the petitioners’ family is provided with employment cannot be lost sight of. The abovementioned additional beneﬁt, which the petitioners were given, was not available to the private pattadars, whose lands were acquired under the provisions of the Act. For the reasons mentioned above, both the writ petitions are disposed of by modifying the order of respondent No.1 to the extent of solatium by directing the respondents to pay 30% solatium on the market value of Rs.3,200/- per acre. The respondents shall re- workout the ex-gratia amount payable to the petitioners and pay the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the Supreme Court aﬃrms the view of this Court in Mekala Pandu (2 supra), the petitioners shall be entitled to payment of market value on par with the private pattadars applying the provisions of the Act. Before parting with these cases, it is required to note that there is a dispute with respect to the extent of lands taken over from the petitioners in WP.No.22107 of 2002. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners after issuing notices and giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them and decide the actual extent, which was assigned to them and taken over by respondent No.3. He shall accordingly fix the compensation. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP.No.25513 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners in WP.No.20346 of 2002 for ﬁxing a date for hearing the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.08.2008 ES [1] 2002 (2) ALD 1 (LB) [2] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)