THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21722 of 2002 Dated:07.07.2010 Between: Venkat Reddy, And others. ...Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. PJP Division, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21722 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners are assignees of agricultural land situated in Erladinne Village of Atmakur Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. The land was taken possession on 29.12.1992 for the public purpose, namely, submergence under Priyadarshini Jurala Project on river Krishna. The petitioners were not paid compensation. They, therefore, filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.3525 of 1995. The same was disposed of on 17.10.1996. A direction was issued to the concerned authorities to complete the enquiry and pay ex-gratia amount to the petitioners. The same was not done. The petitioners then filed a contempt case, being C.C.No.1885 of 1997. The same was disposed of on 24.08.1998 recording the respondents’ version that ex-gratia amounts have been paid to the petitioners. Alleging that they were not paid ex-gratia amounts for structures, the petitioners along with two others filed W.P.No.24603 of 1999. This Court disposed of the same on 07.08.2000 directing the respondents to conduct enquiry and pass necessary orders. In obedience thereto, enquiry was conducted. By impugned order, being R.C.No.B1/10/1990, dated 16.03.2002, the first respondent rejected the claim for ex-gratia/compensation for the structures observing as follows. In compliance of the above orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the matter has again been enquired into. It is found that the assigns failed to establish the claim that the construction of structures in prior to 1983, it has therefore, become evidence that the construction of houses after 1984 has been done with the sole purpose of obtaining compensation from the Government. It is further noticed that the Government has issued directions, as long back as 1983 that no new constructions should be taken up as the land is to be submerged in the Priyadarshini Jurala Project. It is further noticed that the land has been assigned for the purpose of taking up cultivation and not as house site. It is further noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.C.1508 of 1996 has held with the compensation can be denied if the constructions are made in an un-authorised manner and with the constructive knowledge of the proposed acquisition. It is further noticed that ex-gratia has been paid for 6 acres and 20 guntas of land i.e. an amount of Rs.2,21,000/- has already been paid as ex-gratia for agriculture land which is resumed for the public purpose. The conditions 11 and 12 of Assignment of Patta strictly prohibit the payment for compensation for any improvement that has been made to the land and in the event that the land is required for projects or for any other public purpose, it can be resumed and no compensation shall be payable. However, as a measure of relief ex-gratia has already been paid to the individuals for the land which has been resumed it is therefore hereby ordered that since assignees have put up structures in land which has been assigned for the purpose of agriculture and as the Supreme Court of India has held that compensation can be denied if the structures are made with the knowledge of acquisition the assignees are not entitled for compensatin/ex- gratia for the structures which have been set up in agricultural lands. The land is admittedly assigned for the purpose of agriculture, and therefore, raising of structures thereon is certainly prohibited. Further, there is no dispute that conditions 11 and 12 of assignment prohibit payment of compensation for any improvements made to the land. Claim of the petitioners is, therefore, unjustified. I n State of Orissa v Rajakishore Das[1] the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where claims were made for payment of compensation for buildings. The claim was negatived by the Supreme Court and it was held. The Division Bench has recorded the finding that though a sale was purported to have been made of the half constructed building on March 30, 1981 for residential purpose, the sanction for the construction of the building from the Municipality was not obtained. The construction was unauthorized. Nonetheless, the High Court directed the payment of compensation. We find that the approach of the High Court is clearly illegal. Having recorded the finding that the respondent had constructed the building without permission of any authority and since the Government is entitled to have the unauthorized construction demolished, unless the owner himself voluntarily demolishes and takes the value of the building structure as salvage material, the High Court ought to have held that the respondent had proceeded unauthorisedly in constructing the building having had the knowledge of the acquisition. Therefore, the authorities are not bound by such construction. Consequently, the State is not bound to pay compensation of the value of such a building constructed unauthorisedly… As rightly observed by the first respondent the construction of buildings or raising of structures in the assigned land for agricultural purposes is prohibited, and therefore, State is not required to pay any compensation for such unauthorized constructions. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.07.2010 vs [1] AIR 1996 SC 1508