IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22890 of 2008 Between: 1 N. Maheswar Reddy, S/o. Late Subba Reddy, R/o. 1-170, Putlampalli Village, Kadapa District. 2 Adanki Nagendra Prasad, S/o. Obulesh, R/o. 4/352/3, Nagaraju Pet, Kadapa District. 3 P. Kanthamma, W/o. Mallikarjuna Reddy, R/o. 2/404, Upstairs, Nagaraju Pet, Kadapa District. 4 Perla Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Mallikarjuna Reddy, R/o. 2/404, Upstairs, Nagaraju Pet, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa. 4 Shilparamam, Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society (A Govt. of AP Society) Madapur, Hyderabad, Rep by its Special Officer 5 The Managing Director, KCP Projects Ltd. Gaganmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly writ of mandamus declaring the respondents to pay the compensation to the lands of the lands of an extent Ac. 4-82 cents in S.No.138/1, Ac. 4-69 cents in S.No.161/1, Ac. 4-54 cents in S.No.158, and Ac. 4-54 cents in S.No.159 of the petitioners respectively in Putlampalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, which are resumed for public purpose by declaring the common resumption order passed by the MRO Kadapa in his proceedings Ref No. B/1085/2004 dated 15-11-2004 which is communicated on 7-10- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.T.SHARATH Counsel for the Respondent No.5: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24741 of 2008 Between: 1 D. Kesavulu, S/o. Sheshanna, R/o. 8/109-1-1, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa District. 2 Gokula Devid Vijay Kumar, S/o. Joseph, R/o. D3/1664, Sionpuram, Kadapa District. 3 Konda Narasimhulu, S/o. Late Pala Kondaiah, R/o. 1/103, Putlampalli, Kadapa District. 4 Kovuru Pala Kondamma, W/o. Late K. Palaiah, R/o. Sivanandapuram Colony, Putlampalli, Kadapa District. 5 Syed Chanu, S/o. syed Hussain, R/o. 13/409, II nd Floor, Rahamatullah Street, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa. 4 The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa. 5 The Managing Director, KCP Projects Ltd., Gaganmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the lands in S.NO. 240/2, an extent of Ac. 2-40 cents, S.No.201/1 an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents S.No.239/1 an extent of Ac. 1-90 cents, S.No.239/2 an extent of Ac. 2-80 cents, S.NO. 233/1 an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents respectively of dry land in Putlampalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, which are resumed for public purpose by declaring the common resumption order passed by the MRO Kadapa in his proceedings Ref No. B/1085/2004 dated 14-11-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for Respondent No.5: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25399 of 2008 Between: Syed Rakheeb Jan, W/o. Syed Chanu, R/o. 6/109, Maloni Road, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa. 4 The President, Hyderabad Public School Society, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 060 5 The Vice Principal, Hyderabad Public School, Utukuru Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction particularly Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the lands in S.No.220/1 an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents of dry land in Putlamapalli Village, Kadapa Mandal, Which are resumed for public purpose by declaring the common resumption order passed by the M.R.O. Kadapa in his proceedings Ref. No.B/1085/2004 dated 15-11-2004 without communicating the same and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5: MR.L.RAVICHANDER The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.22890, 24741 and 25399 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed challenging the proceedings of third respondent dated 15.11.2004 whereby and whereunder the agricultural lands assigned to petitioners in October 1994, were resumed to Government for public purpose, to wit., for construction of medical college/sports school. Be it noted that lands of other such alienees numbering about 130 were also resumed. It is the case of petitioners that after assignment, petitioners raised eucalyptus and mango trees taking advantage of scheme of Kadapa District Khadi Grama Abhyudaya Samstha. It is also their case that though they are staying in the village, no notice was issued and resumption orders issued in their back are not served to them. According to petitioners, they came to know about resumption orders when land was alienated/transferred to other organisations in additions to Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and these organisations were handed over possession. In these writ petitions in addition to impugning resumption proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Kadapa Mandal, petitioners also seek consequential direction to restore possession of their respective extends of lands, which were originally assigned to them. This Court admitted W.P.Nos.22890 and 24741 of 2008 and passed interim orders directing to maintain status quo. When third writ petition being W.P.No.25399 of 2008 came up before this Court on 20.11.2008 having regard to factual back ground and also decision of Larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v Mekala Pandu[1], Registry was directed to list all the cases for admission and hearing. The writ petitions are opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-Andhra Area) and learned Counsel for contesting respondents like Hyderabad Public School. Two contentious issues raised by learned Counsel are that notice was not issued to petitioners before passing resumption orders and that copy of order was not served on them. Relying on impugned order itself, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that notices were served by affixing such notice in fields on 24.10.2004, which is sufficient compliance with rules of natural justice. A perusal of impugned order would show that notices could not be served on petitioners allegedly for the reason that their addresses were not clear and lands were not cultivated. A large number of persons were assigned lands situated in Putlampalli village of Kadapa Mandal. When large number of persons were assigned lands and lands were sought to be resumed on the ground that they are required for public purpose and also on the ground that they were not brought into cultivation as per the conditions of assignment, no serious objection can be taken for substituted service taken up by revenue officials. This Court however hastens to add that notices in question were served or not is itself a disputed question of fact, which can be agitated before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under Para 15(15) of Board Standing Orders. Petitioners have approached this Court after long delay of four years without filing appeals. In addition to the two submissions noticed herein, learned Counsel for petitioners also vehemently contends that even when land is resumed, petitioners are entitled for compensation in accordance with principles adumbrated in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is not seriously disputed nor denied. Larger Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the matter and laid down as under. 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. In view of settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to accept these writ petitions. Petitioners are given liberty to prefer appeal before RDO within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is also given to petitioners to make appropriate applications to District Collector, Kadapa, claiming compensation in accordance with principles laid down in Mekala Pandu (supra). As and when such applications are made, District Collector shall conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such applications. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 24, 2008 YS To 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa. 4 Shilparamam, Arts, Crafts and Cultural Society (A Govt. of AP Society) Madapur, Hyderabad, Rep by its Special Officer 5 The Director, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa. 6 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 8 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 9 Two C.D. Copies. [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)