Telangana High Court
Regatte Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 9 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.32122 of 2021
O R D E R:
Heard Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5.
02. The issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas situated in Survey No.443 of Yellareddygudem Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act, 2013') or for allotment of an alternative land or not.
03. The brief and undisputed facts that are required to be noted for disposal of the Writ Petition as under:
The subject land was originally assigned in favour of Sri Singisala Saidulu under ex-serviceman quota vide file No.E/448/1996 dated 09.09.1996. On the demise of the said original assignee, the said land was mutated in the name of his son Singisala Srinivasulu and he was also issued a pattadar passbook bearing No.696637 and 2 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 in turn the said Srinivasulu entered into a registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt.V.Sridevi on 05.10.2006 vide Document No.8813/2006. Finally, the said land was sold in favour of the petitioner herein under registered sale deed, dated 17.04.2008 vide registered document No.4314 of 2008. At this stage, the petitioner herein having come to know that the subject land was taken over by the respondents 1 to 3 and was handed over to the respondent No.5, the petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34391 of 2017 seeking payment of compensation in respect of the said land. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 05.01.2018 on the ground that the subject land was already resumed through proceedings No.D/3522/2007 dated 12.01.2008 and the petitioner herein purchased the subject land after passing of the resumption orders by the respondent No.3, and as such the petitioner did not acquire any title over the subject property nor the petitioner challenged the said resumption proceedings dated 12.01.2008. The learned Judge having taken note of the recommendations by the Revenue Authorities for payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of the subject land, passed further orders directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to look into the matter and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.3
MSK, J wp_32122_2021
04. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.136 of 2019 and finally withdrew the said appeal with a liberty to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the order dated 25.01.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the review petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.34391 of 2017 and also filed the present Writ Petition questioning the resumption proceedings dated 12.01.2008 and also seeking a direction for payment of compensation in respect of the subject land. In terms of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.01.2022, this Writ Petition as well as the review petition were listed before the learned Judge who passed the original order in W.P.No.34391 of 2017 and the learned Judge permitted the withdrawal of review petition with a liberty to prosecute this Writ Petition vide order dated 01.07.2022. On the same day, a docket order is also passed in the present Writ Petition leaving it open to the petitioner as well as the respondents to pursue all the contentions that are available to them. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is listed for final disposal before this Court.
05. There is no much dispute on the factual aspects.
06. The subject land was admittedly assigned in favour of ex- serviceman on 09.09.2006. On the demise of ex-serviceman, the subject land was devolved upon his son and in turn he sold the 4 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 property under a Registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, dated 05.10.2006 (AGPA) vide registered document No.8813 of 2006 in favour of one Smt.V.Sridevi. The said sale though AGPA was done after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the assignment of the subject land in favour of the ex-serviceman. Whileso, in the year 2008 through the impugned proceedings, dated 12.01.2008, the 3rd respondent herein passed orders resuming the total land admeasuring Ac.59.23gts. situated in Survey No.443 of Yellareddygudem Village including the subject land for the purpose of providing house sites and for construction of houses for middle class people under Rajiv Swagruha Scheme and offered to pay the ex-gratia as per law. The name of the original assignee was shown in the said proceedings. Admittedly, the original assignee died much prior to the year 2006 and the name of his son was entered in the revenue records. Though, the impugned proceedings speaks that the objections were called for from the original assignees including the ex-serviceman in question, the question of service of any such notice on the deceased person does not arise. So also, the impugned order, dated 12.01.2008 was passed against the dead person as such the same is nonest in the eye of law. It is not the case of the respondents that either the son of the original assignee / ex-serviceman or the purchaser of the subject land under registered AGPA was put on notice. It is also not the case of the 5 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 respondents that any ex-gratia amount was paid in favour of any of the said persons as on date. As the impugned proceedings shown to have been passed against a dead person, the same is not valid in the eye of law and the same is bound to be treated as a nonest. The title over the subject land was already stood transferred in favour of Singisala Srinivasulu, on the death of original assignees prior to the year 2006. As such the resumption proceedings, dated 12.01.2008 issued against the dead person has no affect on the title over the subject land, and the petitioner acquired title over the same by virtue of registered sale deed referred to hereinabove.
07. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the sale of subject land in favour of the petitioner is valid under law or not and if found valid, whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of the ex-gratia as offered through, the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2008 or for payment of compensation in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 2013?
08. As already noted above, the subject land was sold in favour of the petitioner herein after a lapse of 10 years from the date of original assignment. In terms of G.O.MS.No.1117, Revenue(Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993, the sale of the land assigned in favour of an ex-serviceman after a period of 10 years 6 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 from the date of such assignment is permissible. The said Government Order does not impose any other restriction on the right of ex-serviceman to sell the land that was assigned to him after a lapse of 10 years.
09. In the instant case, the subject land was sold by the successor of the ex-serviceman after a lapse of 10 years. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the petitioner purchasing the subject land under a registered sale deed. But for the impugned resumption proceedings, the petitioner would have been in a position to exercise all his ownership rights over the subject property. But the petitioner was deprived of enjoying the subject land because of the impugned resumption order and consequential taking over of the possession of the subject land by the respondent No.3.
10. In the case of BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Sanga Reddy v. State of Telangana and Others1 , a learned Division Bench of this Court held as under:
"....69. Even otherwise, if there is an assignment of land to a person, who is an ex-servicemen, and he is a landless poor person entitled for assignment, even if by some error, the said assignment was made quoting G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dt.25.07.1958 and not mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 or G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, we are of 1 2021 (4) ALD 132 (TS) 7 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 the opinion that the assignees, who are admittedly ex- servicemen are still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 despite the existence of any condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation.
70. Similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ande Narasimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2013 (2) ALD 702 = 2013 (3) ALT 500] and by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari and others vs. Sub-Registrar, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District and others [AIR 2017 AP 713].
71. In Ande Narasimha Rao (supra), an ex-servicemen was granted assignment of land by the State without mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963. The assignment deed also contained a condition prohibiting transfer of property while permitting enjoyment of the same by inheritance.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and he was entitled to sell away the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment.
11. In the light of the law declared by learned Division Bench as noted above, the sale of land in favour of the petitioner, can't be found fault.
12. As it is evident from the material on record that after taking over the possession of the subject land, the same was stated to have been distributed in favour of some third parties. Thus, the petitioner is deprived of his Right to Property by the respondents without following due process of law. Neither the petitioner herein nor his predecessor-in-title i.e., the son of the original assignee or the AGPA holder was put on notice before passing the impugned 8 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 resumption orders. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to agitate his right for payment of compensation in respect of the subject land.
13. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled only for payment of ex-gratia as per various Government Orders or for payment of compensation on par with patta lands in terms of the provisions of Act, 2013 or not. This issue is no more res-integra and is well settled by virtue of a Judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and Others v. Mekala Pandu and Others2, wherein it was held as under:
"108. In the result, we hold that 'no compensation' clause, restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation in respect of the land resumed equivalent to the market value of the land, is unconstitutional. The 'no compensation clause' infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31-A of the Constitution. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed thereunder. The doctrine of 'unconstitutional conditions' applies in all its force.
109. 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 2 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB) 9 MSK, J wp_32122_2021 resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases 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."
14. It is also not necessary to notice that the respondents having considered the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation or for allotment of an alternate land, the respondent Government issued a memo No.4540/LA/2014 dated 16.11.2015 and another memo dated 10.11.2016. The operative portion of the memo dated 16.11.2015 reads as under:
"....5. Therefore, Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby direct the District Collector, Nalgonda to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey No.443 of Yellareddygudem Village, Narketpally Mandal of Nalgonda District afresh as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation to the petitioner viz., Sri R.Srinivasa Reddy, R/o. Nalgonda accordingly, duly in consultation with Housing Department."
15. So also, the operative portion of the memo dated 10.11.2016 reads as under:
"....2. District Collector may consider negotiating the price with the petitioner in the District Level Land Procuring Committee (DLLPC) formed under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.123, Revenue (JA&LA) Department, dated 30.07.2015 and make payment to the petitioner accordingly.10
MSK, J wp_32122_2021 Availability of amount from the Corporation may be ensured first."
16. In spite of the specific orders issued by the respondent No.1, the respondents 2 to 4 failed to take the consequential action resulting in forcing the petitioner to approach this Court time and again.
17. In the light of the settled legal position as held by Larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu Case (cited supra) and also in the light of the findings recorded herein above on factual as well as legal aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have acted in a high handed manner and deprived the petitioner of his Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is entitled to be compensated accordingly.
18. In the light of the above, the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2008 is declared as nonest in the eye of law and accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas situated in Survey No.443 of Yellareddygudem Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District and conclude the same within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11
MSK, J wp_32122_2021
19. Having regard to the over-all facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the proceedings, dated 12.01.2008 was issued and petitioner is deprived of his right to property and also the delay caused in the matter of payment of compensation, this Court is inclined to impose exemplary costs on the respondents which are quantified at Rs.50,000/- payable by respondents 2 and 3 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The Respondent State is granted liberty to recover the said amount of costs from the Officer, who issued the impugned proceedings, dated 12.01.2008 provided he is still continuing in service.
20. Registry is directed to list this matter for compliance of payment of costs on 15.07.2023.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J Date: 09-Jun-2023 NSK/KHRM Note:
Issue copy within 3 days.