IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26439 of 2008 Between: 1 Erakam Sheshaiah, S/o. E. Muthyal Naidu, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Balajangam Koteshwaraiah, s/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 3 B. Damodaram, S/o. Gonvindu Swamy, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 4 Erakam Jamuna, W/o. Sheshaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 5 E. Prakasham, S/o. E. Muthyal Naidu, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 6 B. Chengamma, W/o. Krishnaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 7 Nimmala Venkatamma, w/o. Chinnaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 8 N. Sakkubayamma, W/o. Munuswamy, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 9 P. Munuswamy Reddy, S/o. Narayana Swamy Reddy, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 10 E. Murugan, S/o. Sheshaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 11 B. Rajendra, s/o. Nainappareddy, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 12 Muthuku Balaiah, S/o. Kuchelunaidu, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 13 Erakam Balaswubramanyam, s/o. Munuswamy Naidu, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 14 B. Chandraiah, S/o. Angappa Reddy, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 15 K. Dora, S/o. Kuppi Reddi, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 16 SMS Ameed Saheb, S/o. Dava Sareesh Sahib, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 17 Nimmala Seenaiah, S/o. Peeraiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. 18 Alaga Sarojannamma, W/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Sriharikota Colony, Thondur Village, Tada Post, Vardaiahpalem Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Secretary 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati-cum-Chairmen, Thonduru CJFS 3 The Tahasildar, Vardaiahpalem, Chittoor District. 4 The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Tirupati, Rep by its General Manager 5 M/s. Sri City Private Limited, Chennai Rep by its Director, T. Sunil Reddy .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring orders dated 23-9-2008 made in Rc.No. F/1326/2007 issued by the 2nd respondent in treating petitioners land situated in Sriharikota Colony, Thonduru, Tada Post, Varadaiahpalyam Mandal, Chittoor District belongs to Government and seeking to pay exgratia under the guise of canceling the pattas without following the due procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, non-application of mind to the relevant facts, discriminatory, violative of the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 & 21 and constitutional Right guaranteeed under Article 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same while directign the respondents not to disposses petitioners from their land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26439 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners who are eighteen in number are aggrieved by as many proceedings Rc.No.F/1326/07, dated 25.09.2008, of the second respondent. By various such proceedings while resuming the lands of the petitioners for establishment of Special Economic Zone by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) – fourth respondent, petitioners were informed that they would be paid compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with compensation for trees. In view of the order proposed, it is not necessary to give elaborate factual background. The brief factual background may be noticed as follows. The petitioners originally hailed from the Villages surrounding Sriharikota, Nellore. In 1970, all the lands in these Villages were taken over by the Government of India for establishment of Rocket Launching Station (RLS). The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 02.11.1970, containing guidelines for rehabilitation package for the land oustees (displaced persons). An extent of Acs.2.00 wet land or Acs.5.00 dry land was provided as compensation. The land was situated in Tada area. Petitioners and others occupied the land. Some of them constructed houses. They developed the land in that area now known as “Sriharikota Colony”. However, regular pattas were not granted. In 1991 an attempt was made by the revenue Officials to resume the land for alleged violation of conditions of grant. Ultimately, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration set aside cancellation orders. Thereafter, on 16.09.2000, Government issued a memo to the effect that the assignees/land oustees are entitled for the rights of alienation and enjoyment of land in their own way. In furtherance thereof, pattas were given by the third respondent with absolute rights. In 2006, the land is sought to be acquired for Multi-Product Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be developed by APIIC under private public model. Notification under Section 4(1) as well as Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), was published in November 2006. However, no notification was issued in respect of the lands claimed by the petitioners. They then approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending expropriatory measures, in vain. Public notices were issued to take possession, aggrieved by which, some of the affected persons filed W.P.No.561 of 2007 challenging public notice dated 28.12.2006. Having regard to the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition was disposed of on 17.07.2008 directing the respondents to determine the compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.11.1993. In obedience thereto, second respondent issued notice of resumption of the land and offered a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for wet land Rs.2,50,000/- for dry land per acre. The petitioners submitted explanation along with documentary proof questioning the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and also the very genuineness of public purpose. The petitioners allege that without considering the explanations and documents filed by them, second respondent passed orders vide Rc.No.F/1326/07, dated 25.09.2008, purporting to resume the land and ordering payment of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for wet land as compensation. All the petitioners were given separate orders, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. At the stage of admission itself, fourth respondent (APIIC) and fifth respondent, who entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), filed the counter affidavits opposing the writ petition. They mainly contend that when the land of the petitioners is resumed for public purpose of SEZ on payment of adequate compensation, petitioners cannot have any grievance. They also oppose stay of developmental activities on the ground that some of the land proposed for the SEZ has already been taken over and developmental works have already been commenced involving huge expenditure. They contend that except the lands of the petitioners, which are situated in pockets in middle of the area handed over to fifth respondent, all land has been delivered to fifth respondent. They further contend that in respect of the other lands belonging to other owners situated in Thondur Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal of Chittoor District, Award was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Award No.A-13/2007, dated 30.06.2007, whereunder a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for dry land inclusive of solatium, additional compensation and enhanced interest were ordered to be paid, and therefore, petitioners would also be entitled for the same. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Counsel for respondent No.5, this Court is of considered opinion that the controversy in this case is with regard to quantum of compensation to be paid to the assignees of Government land when the same is resumed for public purpose. Whether the State is liable to pay compensation, if so, what are the principles for determining such compensation, is a question, which is no more res integra. This aspect of the matter was considered in P.Mallaiah v Government of A.P[1], wherein this Court relied on the judgment of Larger Bench in LAO- cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v Mekala Pandu[2] and disposed of similar contentions in the following manner. Whether the Government is bound to pay compensation to the assignees under the provisions of the Act where such assigned lands are resumed by the Government for public purpose? A Full Bench of five learned Judges of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v Bondapalli Sanyasi [3] while overruling the earlier decision of Full Bench of three learned Judges in State of A.P. v P.Peda Chinnayya [4] , held that when the land is resumed in terms of the grant, no compensation be payable towards resumption of land and that compensation, however, is payable if the lands have not been resumed by following due process of law. The Full Bench of seven learned Judges in Mekala Pandu case (supra) on reconsideration of the issue did not accept the view of the Full Bench of five learned Judges in Bondapalli Sanyasi case (supra) and held that assignees of 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 by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant. It was also held that the conditions incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall not operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land… … In Mekala Pandu (supra) the Larger Bench 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. (emphasis supplied) The Award No.A-13/2007, dated 30.06.2007, appears to be consent Award. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, even a consent Award has to be made considering the correct value at which a willing vendor has agreed to purchase from willing seller. In addition to such compensation, needless to mention, every landowner is entitled for solatium and additional compensation payable under the Act and also for additional interest of about 46% (as agreed by the Government in these cases), and all the benefits under the Act and benefits as already paid to other landowners. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that applying principle laid down by this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra), compensation to the petitioners should be determined in accordance with the Act. It shall be open to the petitioners to produce all necessary material by way of evidence for claiming compensation. Revenue Divisional Officer may conduct enquiry and pass orders accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 2006(3) ALD 148 = 2006(2) ALT 742 [2] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) [3] 2002 (2) ALD 1 (LB) = 2002 (1) ALT 543D (LB) [4] 1996 (2) ALD 1215 (FB) = 1997 (1) ALT 498 (FB)