THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 1141 of 2005 Dated: 1-7-2011 Between 1. Collector, Visakhapatnam and another …Appellants And H.Sanyasamma and another …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellants. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, though the name of Dr. P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent is reflected in the cause list. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-7-2004 in W.P.No.9500 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed directing the appellants to pay compensation to the writ petitioner for the petitioner’s land acquired, in the light of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 170 of 2002, reported in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu[1]. The case of the writ petitioner may briefly be noted: One Neelapu Venkata Reddy was assigned Ac.5-00 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No. 115/1 and 2 of Pedagantyada village of Visakhapatnam on 9-12-1964 by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam; and on subsequent measurement the extent was only Ac.4-90 cents. The original assignee Neelapu Venkata Reddy allegedly prepared a private layout and laid out house plots therein. The writ petitioner purchased one plot of an extent of 591 Sq. yards from Neelapu Appalareddi s/o Venkata Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1934, dated 8-4-1971 and was put in possession of the said land. The petitioner thereafter applied revenue authorities for mutation of her name in the revenue records and while an order for mutation was passed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, no changes in the revenue records were affected. The petitioner also spent considerable money for reclaiming/leveling the land for making it fit for construction of a house and is proceeding to construct a house. The respondents however took possession of the land and on inquiry by the petitioner it is stated that the property was handed over to the Steel Plant authorities. On further inquiries by the petitioner she was informed that as the property belongs to the State, its possession was taken over and no compensation is liable to be paid. According to executive orders of the Government, D-Form patta holder whose lands are taken over by the Government are also eligible for compensation at the rates payable for similar lands. For the above reasons, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay compensation and other benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to her in respect of the property she was dispossessed of, for the purpose of Steel Plant. The appellants had filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition. To the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this appeal, it is specifically asserted that a total extent of Ac.42-60 cents in Block No. 27 in Sy.No.115 of Pedagantyada was ordered to be transferred to the Ministry of Steel for the purpose of the Steel Plant and other related purposes in proceedings dated 12-10-1982 of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Block No. 27 in Sy.No. 115 consists of 12 sub- divisions i.e., 115/1 to 115/12 and of these 115/1 to 115/3 and 115/5 and 115/11 are classified as “Assessed Waste Dry” and were assigned under Darkhast Rules to several persons. As per the records Neelapu Venkata Reddy, Neelapu Appaladasureddy and Grandhi Brahmaji were granted D-form pattas for Ac.5-00 cents each in Sy.No.115/1 and 115/2 respectively. These assignments were made prohibiting alienation and therefore, the assignees cannot alienate the land. The assignees also were required to utilize the land for agricultural purposes and could not have formed a layout for selling the land for non-agricultural purpose. The purchase of the land by the petitioner was therefore void being in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. The learned Single Judge by the very brief order under appeal disposed of the writ petition on the assumption that in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu (1 supra), the assignees are entitled to compensation on par with private land owners and therefore, the appellants/respondents are liable to pay compensation for the acquired lands to the writ petitioner. It is however pleaded in the appeal, that as against the judgment in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) the State preferred Special Leave Petitions and SLP (Civil) Nos. 670 to 675 of 2005 were admitted and the Supreme Court granted interim stay as regards payment of any further compensation, under the law declared in the decision of the Larger Bench. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio of the decision in Mekala Pandu (1 supra) is wholly inapplicable and therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether grant of stay by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 670 to 675 of 2005 constitutes an eclipse of the ratio in Mekala Pandu. It must be noticed that the averments in the counter-affidavit not having been denied by the writ petitioner/respondent herein by any subsequent pleadings on the principle of non-traverse, the conclusion is compelling that the property in the possession of the writ petitioner is part of the land assigned to Neelapu Venkata Reddy, Neelapu Appaladasureddy and Grandhi Brahmaji with a condition prohibiting alienation; the assignment was for the purpose of agricultural operations alone; and any alienation by the assignees, in view of the mandate of Act 9 of 1977, would be void and the purchasers would not derive any right or title and would not be entitled to compensation. For this reason, the writ petitioner/respondent is not entitled to any compensation even if the original assignees were, in principle, entitled to compensation if the lands in their possession were taken over, qua, the judgment of the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu (1 supra). On the aforesaid analysis, the conclusion in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st July, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)