THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24044 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the land in an extent of Acs.2.36 cents in Sy. No. 630 of Valsapalli Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed and that his name was also mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said land. While so, he states that even though the land is patta land, as is evident from the revenue record, the respondents without fixing any compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired the land for the purpose of AVR HNSS Project Madanapalle Unit-1, by fixing ex gratia, contending that the acquired land is not patta land, but assigned land. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.3-Special Deputy Collector (LA), HNSS Project, Madanapalle, filed detailed counter-affidavit, stating that the land in Sy. No. 630 is a government land as per the revenue records and it was originally assigned to one Jampala Subbanna under DKT patta in the year 1928. It is further stated that the petitioner has got a portion of the said land from the said DKT patta holder, through registered partition deed. That since the petitioner is in possession of assigned land, he is entitled only to ex gratia as per the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 1307 dated 23.12.1993, and he cannot claim compensation for the acquired land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject land is an assigned land, the same changed hands several times by way of sale transactions since 1940 and ultimately the petitioner came into possession by virtue of purchase made by him. He submitted that since the petitioner purchased the subject land for sale consideration and his name is also reflected in the revenue records, the petitioner is entitled to be paid compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the action of the respondents in treating the subject land as assigned land and depriving him just and reasonable compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reiterated the contents of the counter-affidavit stating that the subject land is a government land and it was originally assigned to one Jampala Subbanna in the year 1928, under DKT patta, who subsequently alienated the land to third parties in contravention of the conditions of patta, and since the land in possession of the petitioner is an assigned land, he is not entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but he is entitled only to ex gratia. Therefore, he submitted that the respondents cannot be faulted for non-payment of compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and instead paying him only ex gratia. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The petitioner states that he purchased the land in question from his vendors for sale consideration and that pursuant to the purchase made by him, the respondents issued pattadar passbook and also mutated his name in the revenue records. As he is the owner of the land, the petitioner states that respondents in its acquisition, have to pay him compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not ex gratia, on the ground that the land purchased by him, which is acquired by them, is an assigned land. However, the respondents in the counter filed by them, have taken a stand that the land in question is an assigned land, that it was originally assigned to one Jampala Subbanna, under a DKT patta, in the year 1928, and that the originally assignee in contravention of the provisions of assignment, alienated the same in the year 1940, in favour of third parties, and since the petitioner claims to have purchased the land from the legal heirs of the said third parties, and since the initial alienation itself is bad as it is made in violation of the conditions of assignment, neither the vendees of the original assignee nor the vendors of the petitioner nor the petitioner, are entitled to payment of compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and at best, the petitioner being in possession of the acquired land, is entitled only to ex gratia. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the land in question is an assigned land and as the conditions of assignment prohibit alienation of the land, the alienation made by the original assignee is bad, and as such, the subsequent purchasers of the land, are not entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioner, who is in possession of the land is entitled only to ex gratia, the fact remains, in spite of directions by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to produce the conditions of assignment, to show that they prohibited the alienation of the assigned land by the original assignees in favour of third parties. He, however, merely produced some revenue entry extracts to show that the land in question acquired from the petitioner, is assigned land. There is no doubt that the land in question, acquired by the respondents from the petitioner, is assigned land, but the fact remains, the original assignment was made in the year 1928 and subsequently the original assignee alienated the same in favour of third parties. The respondents, except stating that alienation of assigned land is prohibited, have not produced any material to show that alienation of assigned land is bad. When the original assignee sold the land in favour of third parties, the same lost the character of assigned land, and it became a private property. Therefore, the sale made by the vendees of the original assignee and subsequent sale transactions of the land in question, including in faavour of the petitioner, would not be hit by the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954 and the provisions of A.P. (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Act No.8 of 2007, which prohibited transfer of assigned lands, because they came into force much subsequent to the alienation of the assigned land, which already lost its character of assigned land. Be that as it may, in the absence of any material produced to show that conditions of assignment prohibit alienation of the land assigned in favour of third parties, the respondents are not justified in contending that the person who is in possession of the assigned land, is not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but is entitled to only ex gratia. This Court, in C.A. No. 924 of 2008 in C.P. Nos. 10 to 16 of 1999, considered the question, what would be the effect of sale of assigned land in the absence of any condition prohibiting alienation of the land, and whether the Sub Registrar, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, was justified in refusing to register the land on the ground that it is an assigned land and prohibited from being alienated, and answered the same against the revenue authorities. The stand taken by this Court, in the said case, squarely applies to this case. However, to consider the applicability of the said case to the facts of the present case, a reference may be made to the facts of the said case, which are as follows: M/s. Commercial Benefit Corporation, which owned several assets, including landed properties in Basinikonda village, Madanapalle, by order dated 02.09.2002, was ordered to be wound up by this Court. The Official Liquidator, who was appointed as Liquidator of the said company, was permitted to sell the properties of the company. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator, had put the properties to public auction. In the said auction, one Sri. V. Manohar, stood as highest bidder, in respect of the landed property, and the Official Liquidator, executed sale deeds in favour of the highest bidder. When the documents were presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, refused to register the same on the ground that the lands are assigned land. Questioning the said action of the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle, the Official Liquidator, representing M/s. Commercial Benefit Corporation, filed the above company, which was contested by the Revenue Department. This Court, having considered the rival contentions and having noted the facts of the case, found that even though the lands were categorized as assigned lands in the year 1929 and were assigned to landless poor persons between the years 1932 and 1942, the fact remains, the conditions of assignment made in favour of the original assignees did not contain any condition prohibiting the alienation of the land either by the original assignees or their legal heirs, and considering the fact that the original assignees/legal heirs of the original assignees, alienated the lands assigned to them, in favour of third parties, and thereafter, several sale transactions took place, and ultimately, in the year 1992, the company in liquidation purchased the same from their vendors, and in the absence of any objection taken by the revenue officials with regard to alienation/transfer of land made earlier, by order dated 21.10.2009, held that the Sub Registrar, Madanapalle was not justified in registering the documents presented for registration, on the ground that the land is assigned land. This Court, further while observing that the assignment made after 1954 is different from the assignment made prior to 1954, held as follows: “As stated above, the lands in question were assigned to the original assignees between the years 1939 and 1942. At the time when the lands were assigned to the original assignees, the assignment orders did not contain any condition prohibiting the alienation of the land by the original assignee or their legal heirs in favour of the third parties, except on condition which prohibited the alienation of the land in favour of persons other than British people and Indian citizens. Admittedly, the alienation made by the original assignee is not in favour of persons other than British people and citizens of India, and the being so, the alienation made by the original assignees in favour of their vendors, cannot be said to be violative of the terms and conditions of assignment. The fact that the lands in question, which were assigned during the year 1939 and 1942 are alienable, is evident from the fact that the Government having acquired similar lands for the purpose of formation of bye-pass road, paid compensation to the 0-ersons, who purchased the lands from the original assignees or their vendees, vide award dated 12.08.1996.” “ If that be so, and having regard to the fact that there is no prohibition placed in he orders of assignment, against alienation of the lands in question in favour of the third parties, it has to be held that the alienation made by the original assignees in favour of their vendors, and the subsequent sale transactions entered into by the vendors, and the purchase made by the company in liquidation of such land, which is sold to the highest bidder, cannot be said to be invalid or hit by the orders issued by the Government in their G.Os or the provisions of A.P. (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended Act No.8 of 2007.” Thus in the above case, it is clear that this Court, considering the fact that the several sale transactions took place from the date of assignment and much before alienation of assigned land came to be prohibited, held that the Sub Registrar was not justified in refusing to register the land on the ground that it is assigned land. In the case on hand, as already noted supra, the original assignee, who was assigned the land in the year 1928, sold the same to third parties in the year 1940, and subsequently several transactions took place, and in the absence of any material produced by the respondents to show that the conditions of assignment prohibited alienation of lands assigned in the year 1928, and the original assignee having alienated the assigned land in favour of third parties, much prior to G.O. Ms. No. 1142, Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954 and the provisions of A.P. (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Act No.8 of 2007, coming into force, which prohibited the alienations, I am of the considered opinion that the subject land purchased by the petitioner, which originally is an assigned land, and which has been acquired by the respondents from the petitioner, cannot be termed or treated as an assigned land, justifying the respondents to deny compensation to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and pay him only ex gratia. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner, under the Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of the subject land. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 11th November, 2010 IBL