IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21035 OF 2000 Between: 1 Konda Krishnaiah S/o Seshaiah, R/o.Nandalur, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 Pagadala Narsimha S/o Venkata Subbaiah R/o.Nandalur, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District. 3 P. Seshamma (Died) S/o Narsimha, R/o.7/515/3A, NGO Colony, Cuddapah District. Rep. by her L.R. P.Venkata Narsaiah S/o Narsimhulu ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Cudddapah. 2 The Revenu Divisional Officer Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District. 4 Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board Rep. by its Chairman, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Allwyn Now Voltas Rep. by its Managing Director Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or direction and quash the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent i.e., R.D.O. Rajampet, dated 12-07-2000 in Ref.No.H/1168/98, after calling for the records of the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the compensation already arrived at applying the principles of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.V.SIVAIAH FOR MR.Y.KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21035 OF 2000 O R D E R The petitioners herein challenge the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District- second respondent herein, in Ref.No.H/1168/1998, dated 12.07.2000 and seek a writ of Certiorari to quash the same. A consequential direction is also sought to the District Collector, Cuddapah District, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District, and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nandalur, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District, respondents 1 to 3 herein, to pay the compensation already arrived at by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners claim that the A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad, fourth respondent herein, vide Proceedings Nos.626/3/74 dated 05.07.1974 and 623/5/74 dated 05.07.1974 being proceedings passed under Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, 1965, allotted the subject lands to them and directed the Tahsildar, Rajampet, to issue pattas. It is stated that pattas were accordingly issued to the petitioners. This aspect is speciﬁcally pointed out by the petitioners to substantiate their contention that the subject lands were not Government lands and were not assigned to them under the Assignment Laws of the State. The petitioners claim that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands since the date of their allotment by the fourth respondent in their favour. They also claim that they have raised citrus gardens in the said lands, by incurring huge expenditure for providing the necessary facilities and infrastructure. While so, the petitioners allege that the subject lands were taken over by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nandalur Mandal, Cuddapah District in the year 1987 and were handed over to the Allwyn Company, 5th respondent herein, for the purpose of construction of its factory. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nandalur, Cuddapah District, issued notice dated 11.06.1988 to the petitioners informing them about the cancellation of their pattas. Aggrieved by the action of the Authorities, as evidenced by the proceedings dated 11.06.1988, the petitioners approached this Court by way W.P.Nos.17208, 17209 and 17210 of 1988. Therein, they sought a direction to the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure and to pass an Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the subject lands. This Court, by way of separate orders dated 08.03.1996, allowed the writ petitions directing the District Collector, Cuddapah, ﬁrst respondent herein, to pay the petitioners the market value of the land as on the date of the Order by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that the said order has become ﬁnal as the respondent authorities did not choose to file an appeal against the same. The complaint of the petitioners in praesenti is that in spite of the order of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, they were not paid compensation as directed by this Court. It is stated that the authorities ﬁxed the net amount payable at Rs.15,96,363/-. Thereafter, they reduced it to Rs.10,08,750-50 Ps., and further reduced it to Rs.7,07,931-97 Ps. The petitioners also stated that the respondent authorities called upon the Allwyn Company – ﬁfth respondent herein to deposit the said sum of Rs.7,07,931-97 Ps. for eﬀecting payments to the petitioners. It appears that in the interregnum the petitioners entered into a compromise with the fourth respondent herein with regard to the sharing of the compensation payable in respect of the subject lands. This compromise appears to have been eﬀected in W.P.No.36802 of 1998 ﬁled before this Court by the fourth respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that while the matters stood thus, the second respondent herein by proceedings dated 12.07.2000 sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,10,890/- to be jointly shared by the petitioners and the fourth Respondent Board, by allotting Rs.66,534/- to the share of the petitioners and Rs.44,356/- to the fourth respondent, treating it as an ex-gratia payment under G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue Department, dated 22.12.1993. The said action is challenged before this Court. The petitioners allege that the G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 22.12.1993, relied upon by the second respondent has no application to the facts of the present case as the lands in question are not Government lands assigned by the Government under its Assignment Laws. Further, the impugned order is also in contravention of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and is accordingly unsustainable. The petitioners challenged the said proceedings dated 12.07.2000 and sought a consequential direction to pay them compensation by applying the principles of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition, deposed to by the District Collector, Cuddapah, the ﬁrst respondent herein. The respondents admit that the subject lands were allotted to the petitioners by the fourth respondent and that patta certiﬁcates were issued to them. They also admit to the fact that the subject lands were taken over by the Government in the year 1986 for allotting the same to the ﬁfth respondent herein for construction of its factory. The counter highlights the fact that the petitioners were paid developmental charges for the structures and the trees upon the lands. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Having stated so, the respondents also admit to the fact that they suﬀered orders before this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.17208 of 1988 and batch, whereby they were directed to assess the market value of the subject property taking into consideration the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents also concede that the second respondent had proposed the market value of the lands at Rs.7,07,931/-. However, it is their case that G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 22.12.1993 would be applicable to the petitioners and they would only be entitled to ex-gratia. It is their case that for all practical purposes, the subject lands must be treated as assigned lands. They reiterate ad nauseum that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and would only be entitled for compensation, i.e., ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 22.12.1993. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. Given the fact that the respondents admit to having suﬀered the orders passed by this Court on 08.03.1996 in W.P.No.17208 of 1988 and batch, they are bound to implement the said orders in true letter and spirit. A reading of the order dated 08.03.1996 passed by this Court in W.P.17208 of 1988, which was adopted in the other two cases, would show that this Court held that the granting and revocation of pattas under the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 was exclusively vested in the fourth respondent and further held that the proceeding passed by the third respondent on 11.06.1988, cancelling the pattas, was illegal and unsustainable. Having stated so, this Court took note of the fact that the petitioners were already dispossessed from their lands and that they were paid some amount of compensation towards the constructions and development made by them on the said lands. The learned Judge however held that this fact, by itself, could not deprive the petitioners of their right to the property and accordingly directed the respondents to pay to the petitioners the market value of the property as on the date of the order i.e. 08.03.996, to be assessed by the District Collector, taking into consideration the principles of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the above observation, the said writ petition was allowed. The orders passed in W.P.No.17209 of 1988, which was ﬁled by the third petitioner herein and W.P.No.17210 of 1988 ﬁled by the second petitioner herein are to the same effect. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 08.03.1996, the second respondent Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer undertook an enquiry into the matter and submitted his report in Ref.No.B.1163/96, dated 28.10.1996 to the ﬁrst respondent. Therein, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, duly taking into account the amounts already paid to the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the net amount still payable to the petitioners worked out to Rs.15,92,363-00. He also recorded the fact that the ﬁrst petitioner herein was given a patta in respect of an extent of Ac.2-24 cents in Sy.No.1167/1, while the second petitioner held a patta for an extent of Ac.5-11 cents in Sy.No.1167/2 and the third petitioner held a patta in respect of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.1167/3 of Nandalur village, Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapah District. It is not forthcoming from the proceedings on record as to how the net amount payable, assessed by the second respondent in the proceedings aforestated, came to be reduced and ultimately became the ﬁgure of Rs.7,07,931- 97 Ps. Be that as it may, it is noticed that the respondent authorities did not choose to pay even this sum to the petitioners, but strangely, they chose to bring in G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 22.12.1993, which is with regard to payment of ex-gratia to assignees upon resumption of assigned land. The larger issue as to whether assignees are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is said to be presently pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, but the case on hand need not await the decision of the Apex Court. On the face of it, the subject lands are not Government lands and were not assigned under the Assignment Laws of the State. They cannot be subjected to the wholly irrelevant policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 22.12.1993. Further, the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation puts the matter beyond the pale of doubt, in as much as the learned Judge in that case had held that the grant of pattas in favour of the petitioners was exclusively under the domain of the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, the fourth respondent, and the Government had nothing to do with the same. The learned Judge having stated so, speciﬁcally directed the respondent authorities to pay the market value of the property to the petitioners after assessment of the same by the ﬁrst respondent, taking into consideration the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not disputed that the said order of this Court has become ﬁnal. In the light of the ﬁnality attaching to the order of this Court, it is not open to the respondent authorities to bluntly state now that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and that they would be entitled to only ex-gratia payments as per G.O.Ms.No.1307. Such a stand on the part of the respondent authorities is in flagrant contravention of the mandate of this Court in its orders dated 08.03.1996 in W.P.No.17208 of 1988 and batch. In the light of what is stated above, it is clear that the respondent authorities were under an obligation to assess the market value of the petitioners’ lands taking into consideration the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears that the second respondent herein, though he did not take the petitioners into conﬁdence, undertook such an assessment and by his report dated 28.10.1996, he quantiﬁed the net amount payable to the petitioners at Rs.15,92,363/-. In that view of the matter, the proper course for the respondent authorities would be to remit the amounts due to the petitioners as per the said report dated 28.10.1996 of the second respondent herein. The petitioners also lay a claim for interest in the light of the long delay in the payment of the compensation pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.03.1996 in W.P.No.17208 of 1988 and batch. This claim is found to be justiﬁed, not only due to the long delay but also because of the recalcitrant attitude adopted by the respondent authorities in discharging the mandate visited on them by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioners would therefore be entitled to interest upon the amounts due to them in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in this regard. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings in Ref.No.H/1168/98, dated 12.07.2000 passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, second respondent, and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the assessment made by the second respondent herein, in his report dated 28.10.1996 and pay the net amounts due to the petitioners and the fourth respondent, quantiﬁed at Rs.15,92,363/-, along with interest payable upon the said sum as per Section-34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent authorities are directed to ensure that this exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This exercise, relating to the ﬁxation of the amounts payable to the petitioners, shall be expressed in the form of an Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. This would entitle the petitioners and the fourth respondent to seek enhancement of the compensation, if they so choose, under the provisions of the said Act itself. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. ----------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 PGS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.21035 of 2000 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008