THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11733 of 2000 24.1.2008 Between: S.K. Prabhakar Rao, S/o.Late S.K.Subbarayudu …Petitioner And The Special Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool District And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11733 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioner is resident of Vanal village of Pamulapdu Mandal in Kurnool District. He purchased agricultural dry land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in survey No.41/B2 situated in the said village. Purchase was made by petitioner in the auction conducted by Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty (OSD) on behalf of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool, (DCCB, for brevity) for realizing a loan that was advanced to one Nadipi Ranga Swamy as an agricultural loan. Sale in favour of petitioner was confirmed by proceedings dated 08.6.1999. Petitioner was put in possession and is cultivating the land. Second respondent issued notice in Rc.No.B- 266/96, dated 01.3.1999, asking petitioner to show cause as to why the land should not be resumed on payment of lump sum exgratia. The same was followed by proceedings of even number dated 08.6.1999 whereby and whereunder the land belonging to as many as 33 persons including petitioner was resumed. Petitioner lost an extent of Acs.3.34 but exgratia was not paid nor compensation was awarded. In the meanwhile first respondent in his letter in No.A3.474/97, dated 20.8.1999, addressed to Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, sought clarification as to whether purchaser of assigned land from DCCB is eligible for compensation and whether petitioner can be treated as original pattadar of assigned land. Government then issued Memo No.48890/Assign.I(1)/92-1, dated 26.4.1993 clarifying that when assigned land is purchased by a person in Court auction such purchaser would get title over the assigned land and he is eligible for payment under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity). In spite of the same no compensation was paid to petitioner. Therefore present writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus to respondents to pass Award for an extent of Acs.3.34. Second respondent filed counter affidavit. The factum of petitioner’s land being taken for alignment of Alaganur Balancing Reservoir Inlet channel is not denied. It is however stated that petitioner and others were paid exgratia amount. Second respondent however does not deny that compensation as per the Act is not paid to petitioner. Learned Counsel for petitioner besides placing reliance on Government’s Memo dated 26.4.1993, has also placed reliance on decision of Full Bench of seven Judges of this Court in LAO-cum- RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v Mekala Pandu[1] has considered the question in controversy 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 part 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 this case when first respondent sought clarification with reference to case of petitioner whether he can be treated as pattadar or whether he is eligible for compensation, Government clarified as below. However Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, in express words, lays down that nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a cooperative society, a scheduled Bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government as may be notified by the Government in this behalf. In view of the clear language of Section 6 of the Act the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not applicable to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the institutions specified therein. Accordingly the auction purchasers of these lands for valuable consideration will get title over the assigned land, entitling them to claim compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, if that land is subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore even if the petitioner was paid exgratia for Acs.3.34 – which is not denied by petitioner; he is still entitled for compensation as per the ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra) and also as per the orders of the Government in Memo No.48890, dated 26.4.1993. The writ petition is therefore allowed, directing respondents to pass Award under the Act and pay compensation to petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, Mandamus shall be enforceable subject to Judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed against Mekala Pandu case (supra). ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) January 24, 2008 YS [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (FB of Seven Judges)