IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2644 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Mylipalli Manikyam W/o. Chilnna Rao, Hindu R/o. of Veduruwada (V & P) Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Usha Demudu S/o. Not known R/o. Marturu Village, Duppituru Post, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Smt. Yerramsetti Appala Narasa W/o. Krishna, Hindu Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Smt. Bangari Eswaramma W/o. Ramana, Hindu Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Bangari Appa Rao S/o. Pentayya, Hindu Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Smt. Ommi Appalanarasa W/o.APpa Rao, Hindu Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhpatnam Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Atchutapuram Mandal, Atchutapuram, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Zonal Manager, A.P.I.I.C. Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam-08 .....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 declare the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc No. 416/2007/B/dt. 11-7-2007 for resuming the lands in possession of petitioners, admeasuring Ac 0.50 cts each situated respectively in SY.Nos. 3/1C, 3/1K, 3/II, 3/1H, 3/1G, 3/1T, of Veduruwada Revenue Village, Atchutapurma Mandal of Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of the lands without sanction or authority of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.VENKATA RAMAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr.K.V.Srihari The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners seek to declare the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc. No. 416/2007/B/dt. 15-11-2007 for resuming the lands in possession of petitioners, admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents each situated in Sy.Nos. 3/1C, 3/1K, 3/II, 3/1H, 3/1G, and 3/1T, of Veduruwada Revenue Village, Atchutapurma Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of the lands without sanction or authority of law. It is the case of the petitioners that each of them have been assigned an extent of land of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.Nos. 3/1C, 3/1K, 3/II, 3/1H, 3/1G, 3/1T, of Veduruwada Revenue Village, Atchutapurma Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, they being the landless poor in 1993 and they have been cultivating the same and eking out their livelihood on the said lands. It is stated the petitioners are small farmers and the land has been allotted on payment of costs of the land being 50 times of the annual land revenue within a period of 15 years in equal instalments and they never violated any terms and conditions of D-form pattas or any provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act (for short “the Act”). While so, it is stated that the Tahsildar, Atchutapuram passed an order requesting the petitioners to attend before him on 03.12.2007 along with D-form patta for the purpose of getting ex-gratia payment as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1307/Revenue (Asn.I) Department, 23.12.1993 as the said land is required for the public purpose i.e. for developing rehabilitation colony to displaced families whose houses were acquired for the purpose of establishing HPCIL. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the assigned lands are inheritable but not alienable and there is no condition prescribed in D- form patta for resumption of the said lands even for the public purpose. Learned Government Pleader submits that admittedly the lands assigned in favour of the petitioners are ceiling surplus lands and the lands have been vested under Section 14 of the A.P. Land Reforms Act by following due procedure under Section 14 read with Rule 10 of the Rules made thereunder. The ceiling surplus lands have been allotted in favour of the petitioners subject to certain terms and conditions and therefore, it cannot be said that the title has been passed on to the assignees. The title always vests with the government with the limited right to enjoy the property and the right to enjoy the property is not inheritable but assignable. Therefore, it cannot be said that even if the said lands are required for the public purpose, the government has no power to resume the said land. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation and ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.No.1307/Revenue (ASN.I) Department, dated 23.12.1993, but also entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. to say solatium, additional compensation and interest as held by this Court in P. MALLAIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[1]. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to resume the lands only after payment of ex-gratia/compensation as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1307/ Revenue, (ASN.I) Department, dated 23.12.1993 apart from compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. to say solatium, additional compensation and interest. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:25.02.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 2006(2) ALT 742