IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25893 of 2008 Between: 1 P.V. Venkataramappa, S/o. P.N. Venkatappa, R/o. Patrapalli Village, V. Kota Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 P.S. Munirathnamma, W/o. Srinivasulu, R/o. Patrapalli Village, V. Kota Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Rathnamma, W/o. Late Lakshmaiah, R/o. Patrapalli Village, V. Kota Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 P.V. Govindappa, S/o. M. Venkataswamy, R/o. Patrapalli Village, V. Kota Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Tahsildar, Venkatagiri Kota Mandal, Venkatagiri Kota, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 3 The District Collector, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ, orderor direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Orders in Roc.No. A/214/08 dated 06-09-2008 in cancelling the D.K.T. Pattas granted in favour of the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently Set-aside the Cancellation Orders dated 06-09-2008 issued by the 1st Respondent in so far as the lands of the Petitioners are concerned; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE (Assignment) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25893 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners filed instant writ petition challenging the proceedings of first respondent, dated 06.09.2008 whereby and whereunder, the DKT pattas granted to petitioners were cancelled duly resuming the land for public purpose and proposing to pay ex gratia as per orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.1307, date 23.12.1993. Petitioners allege that they were assigned agricultural lands in survey Nos.367-2, 390-6, 366-5 and 389-2D, 389-2C and 390-15 situated at Patrapalli village, V.Kota Mandal in Chittoor District. petitioners statedly are in possession and cultivating the land. petitioners allege that the lands assigned to them are situated in one kilometer away from the village and though there are Government lands for purpose of construction of houses under Integrated Novel Development In Rural Areas & Model Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA) Scheme, first respondent with mala fide intention at the behest of rival political parties sought to cancel patta lands of petitioners. First respondent issued show cause notice, dated 30.04.2008, calling upon petitioners to submit explanation as to why their lands should not be resumed for public purpose i.e., INDIRAMMA Scheme by invoking condition No.17 of the DKT patta. Petitioners submitted explanation on 14.05.2008. After considering the same, petitioners’ assignment was cancelled informing them that they shall be paid compensation. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it would be contrary to Article 14 of Constitution of India to deprive landless poor persons like petitioners to provide house sites to other landless poor persons. Secondly, he submits that there are vacant lands in the village and there is no necessity for respondents to resume petitioners’ lands, in which they have been cultivating since long. Opposing the writ petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that when Tahsildar exercised power under condition No.17 and resumed the land, the right of petitioners is only to claim compensation as held by this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v Mekala Pandu[1]. He also relied on the decision of this Court in P.Mallaiah v Government of A.P[2]. There is no dispute that petitioners were assigned lands under D- form pattas. Condition No.17 enables Government to resume the lands for any public purpose. In such a case, assignees cannot have any right to challenge such resumption though they are entitled for compensation on par with private lands when they are acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Larger Bench of seven learned Judges of this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra) 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. The same was also followed in P.Mallaiah (supra). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they may appeal to second respondent raising all pleas. Liberty is also given to petitioners to claim compensation, which shall have to be considered keeping in view the principles in Mekala Pandu (supra). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.11.2008 pln [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) [2] 2006 (3) ALD 148 : 2006 (2) ALT 742