Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The matter pertaining to Government grants and their rescission came before a 5-Judge bench of this Court also reported in State of A.P. V. Bondapalli Sanyasi, (LB). One of the Judges, with whose opinion the majority agreed, after considering the whole case laws, held that where the assigned land is taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant or patta the right of the assignee to any compensation will have to be determined in accordance with the conditions in patta itself and where the State does not resort to the covenant of the grant and resorts to the Land Acquisition Act the assignee shall be entitled to compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act not as an owner but as an interested person for the interest he held in the property. Learned Chief Justice S.B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) has concurred with this opinion and gave added reasons for coming to this conclusion. In para-23 His Lordship held, "Where the stand of the Government is that it has resumed land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the patta, the question of issuance of any direction upon the State to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act would not arise at all. The provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are not applicable in the case of State. Having regard to the fact that the lands cannot be restored back even in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, what would be payable is the amount of compensation to which the plaintiffs may be found to be entitled to, but the grant of compensation by no stretch of imagination can be equivalent to the market value of the land in view of the fact that the interest of the assignees in the land was limited. The State while acquiring lands can exercise its power of eminent domain. Solatium is paid only in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There does not exist provisions for payment of solatium if acquisition or requisition of the land is made in terms of the provisions of an Act other than the Land Acquisition Act. It is one thing to say that having regard to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India no citizen should be deprived of his right to property without payment of compensation if the State exercises its power of eminent domain, but, it is another thing to say that they would be entitled to the market value of the land as if they are the full owners thereof despite the fact that they are not. Grant of compensation, therefore, must be determined having regard to the nature of rights and other circumstances attending thereto. To the said extent, the Full Bench decision, in our opinion, has not laid down correct law and must be overruled."