Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Guntikinda Subbareddy on 13 August, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:{Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy}
1. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Appeals Nos.1543 & 1550 of 2018 under Clause 15 of Letters Patent are filed by the State Government aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 6.8.2018 in W.P.Nos.35981 and 40002 of 2015 respectively, while Writ Appeal No.1544 of 2018 is filed by the State Government aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.7.2018 in W.P.No.39983 of 2015, whereby the appellants herein are directed to pay compensation in terms of the guidelines issued by the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Mekhala Pandu and others1.
3. The respondents-writ petitioners became the owners of the lands assigned to them by the appellants herein and they are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. While they were cultivating their lands, the lands were acquired by the appellants for the purpose of formation of new Broad Gauge railway line and thereupon, the appellants issued proceedings, which were impugned in the above writ petitions. 1 AIR 2004 (AP) 250 2 HACJ & MSM,J W.A Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550/2018
4. The main contention of the respondents-writ petitioners before the learned single Judge is that the lands of the writ petitioners cannot be taken away except by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings of the appellants were challenged in the above writ petitions before the learned single Judge, and the learned single Judge disposed of the above three writ petitions vide common order dated 24.7.2017, aggrieved by which the State Government carried the matter in appeal viz., WA Nos.1903, 1904 and 1905 of 2017. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, vide common judgment dated 8.2.2018 disposed of the said writ appeals with certain observations and remanded the matters to the learned single Judge to consider various aspects including the amount payable towards compensation etc., in terms of Mekala Pandu's case (1st cited supra). After remand, the matter was taken up by the learned single Judge, and the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petitions directing the appellants herein to follow the guidelines issued by the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P, Hyderabad in Mekala Pandu's case and pay compensation in terms thereof.
5. The above writ petitions were filed for issuing writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer in granting only exgratia for the lands and structures held by the writ petitioners as illegal, void, arbitrary and against the principles laid down in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Mekalapandu and others (AIR 2004(AP) 250), as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012 dated 4.8.2014 and against the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013) and issue a consequential direction to the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing 3 HACJ & MSM,J W.A Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550/2018 Corporation Limited, Rapur, SPSR Nellore District, to pay compensation to the writ petitioners in accordance with law.
6. The learned single Judge issued the following directions:
"W.P.Nos.35981 and 40002/2015 are allowed on 6.8.2018, with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to each of the writ petitioners therein by the 1st respondent within four weeks from that day;
W.P.No.39983/2015 is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to each of the petitioners therein by the 1st respondent within four weeks from that day;
The 3rd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, shall re-determine the compensation for lands of each of the writ petitioners, which were resumed for the benefit of the 6th respondent-Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Tirumalai Railway Station, Mylapore, Chennai, as per Act 30 of 2013 by taking the date of dispossession as 17.12.2014 for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.35981 of 2015; by taking the date of dispossession as 22.12.2004 for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.39983/2015; and by taking the date of dispossession as 1.1.2014 for the petitioners in W.P.No.40002 of 2015; and then apply the principles of determination of compensation, fix the same and other benefits under the said statue, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. After such determination is made by the 3rd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, the same shall be communicated by him forthwith to the petitioners as well as 6th respondent, and the 6th respondent shall make available the funds to the 3rd respondent for disbursement to each of the petitioners after deducting the amounts already received by each of the petitioners."
Aggrieved by the above orders, the present appeals are filed by reiterating almost all the grounds urged in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petitions.
7. During the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reiterated all the contentions that were urged in the counter in the writ petitions, and requested to set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge, while contending that the appellants followed the procedure prescribed for taking possession of the property in terms of the conditions of patta, and thereby, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the writ petitioners in terms of Mekala Pandu's case.
4 HACJ & MSM,J W.A Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550/2018
8. Whereas Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.6.2016, the writ petitioners are entitled to claim compensation on par with the patta land owners and requested to confirm the order passed by the learned single Judge.
9. Earlier, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions by common order dated 24.7.2017, issuing a direction to consider the case of the writ petitioners by giving notification under Section 11 of the Act 30 of 2013 and consider any requirement of rehabilitation and resettlement with infrastructure facilities, including consideration of those who were earlier cultivating under group cultivation, being persons affected before acquisition, if any, as on the date the possession was resumed by the Government under the premise the Government is the owner. In writ appeals Nos.1903, 1904 and 1905 of 2017, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P., clarified the legal position laid down in Mekala Pandu's case and remanded the matter to the learned single Judge to pass orders afresh.
10. Though the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that in terms of patta conditions the possession of property was resumed as it is the project affected area for laying broad gauge line for railways, but those pattas are not placed on record atleast to verify the conditions which enabled to resume the land. Even assuming for a moment that the pattas were granted subject to condition of resuming the land for public purpose, still the judgment in Mekala Pandu's case comes into operation and it is still good law. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Mekala Pandu's case, the writ petitioners are entitled to claim all benefits on par with others viz., private patta land owners whose were acquired in 5 HACJ & MSM,J W.A Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550/2018 accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as clarified by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even as per G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 21.6.2016, the affected families are entitled to claim compensation. Whenever assigned lands are required for a public purpose, for a project or for alienation to a Government Department or Corporation, the lands shall be resumed as per conditions of patta and the compensation for the resumed assigned lands shall be paid on par with patta lands as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other Land Acquisition Act in force in the State.
11. In view of the above G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.6.2016 and in the light of the judgment in Mekhala Pandu's case, we are of the view that the writ petitioners are entitled to claim compensation/benefits on par with the patta land owners. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the costs imposed by the learned single Judge while allowing the above writ petitions, are set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed in part to the extent of setting aside the order as to payment of costs while confirming the order regarding payment of compensation in terms of Mekhala Pandu judgment. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ _________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dated: 13.08.2019 Nn 6 HACJ & MSM,J W.A Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550/2018 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT APPEAL Nos.1543, 1544 & 1550 of 2018 (Common Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy } 13.8.2019 Nn