IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.3065 of 2009 Between: Mukkamalla Vara Lakshumma, W/o.Narayana, R/o.Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the District Collector, Kadap District, Kadapa. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsidar, Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 5 A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Rep. by its Zonal Manager, Kadapa. ...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 more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing and acquiring of Petitioners rights in lands in Sy.No.1054/2, extent Ac.4.79 cents, situated in peddapalli Village, siddavatam Mandal, Kadapa District without reference to Law and payment of compensation is violative of Article 300 A Constitution of India and the proceedings in Ref.No.D/1085/2004 dated 15.11.2004 as void without jurisdiction and non-est in the eye of law in so far as it related to dispossession of Writ Petitioner is concerned and direct payment of compensation in accordance with law and / or G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993 and pass such other or further orders deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.3065 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging proceedings of the third respondent dated 15.11.2004 whereunder land assigned to the petitioner in the year 1985 was resumed and restored to Government, for public purpose i.e., for construction of Public Park. Be it noted that lands of other such assignees numbering about 130 were also resumed. It is the case of petitioner that the assigned land was not fit for cultivation and classified as dry land, and with great amount of personal labour and expense, by herself and her family members, the land was brought under cultivation. It is also her case that notices claimed to have been issued were not communicated to her and resumption orders issued behind her back. According to the petitioner, she obtained a copy of the impugned order from similarly situated persons in the order impugned. In this Writ Petition, in addition to impugning resumption proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Kadapa Mandal, petitioner also seeks consequential direction for payment of compensation in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is opposed by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Two contentious issues raised by the learned Counsel are that notice was not issued to petitioner before passing resumption orders and that copy of order was not served on her. Relying on impugned order itself learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that notices were served by affixing such notices 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 assignees 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 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 the Board Standing Orders. Petitioner has approached this Court after long delay of four years without filing appeal. In addition to the two submissions noticed herein, learned Counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contends that even when land is resumed, petitioner is entitled for compensation in accordance with the principles adumbrated in Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This is not seriously disputed nor denied. Larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v Mekala Pandu[1] 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 par 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 the settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to accept the Writ Petition. Petitioner is given liberty to prefer appeal before the RDO within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the District Collector, Kadapa, claiming compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in Mekala Pandu (1 supra). As and when such application is made, the District Collector shall conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. _____________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 18th February 2009 RRB [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)