Disposed

Bojja Ramalinga Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2020WP/1390/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that government authorities cannot interfere with possession of Ex-service Men quota land without following G.O.Ms.No.259. Compensation for resumed land must be paid per TLARR Act 2013 standards, not just exgratia.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay exgratia and other permissible compensation under G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016.

Bojja Ramalinga Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.1390 of 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with rights of petitioner over land in an extent of Ac.2-16 cents in S.No.409/2A of Chinnachowk village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, stating that the land is proposed to assign as house sites to weaker sections, without adhering to procedure envisaged under the provisions of Right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioner over the subject land.

¶4

It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.2-16 cents in S.No.409/2A of Chinnachowk village, Kadapa Mandal and the same was assigned to the petitioner under Ex-Service Men quota, by granting DKT Patta, dated 23.07.1993. The petitioner brought the property under cultivation by investing huge amount, in addition to labour and raised Mango garden with 150 Mango trees which are aged about 18 years each.

¶5

While so, 4^th respondent issued notice dated 19.06.2007 alleging that the land is assessed as waste and the petitioner is enjoying the subject land and the same is required to be resumed for construction of Rajeev Swagruha and called him to appear before him personally on 18.6.2007 at about 11.00 AM to submit his explanation as to why the subject land shall not be resumed by Government and produce original patta, passbook and title deed etc., to claim compensation. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent, submitted his written representation dated

¶6

¶7

23.06.2007 bringing to his notice that the subject land was assigned to him long ago i.e. in the year 1993 and also he raised Mango garden in the land, requested not to take possession of the property. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 21.06.2016, the respondents are not entitled to take possession over the subject land or interfere with the rights of the petitioner on the property and therefore, the proposed action of the respondents in interfering with the rights of the petitioner over the subject land and proposed to assign land to the landless poor, is illegal and arbitrary and requested to pass appropriate order.

¶8

During hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted his written submissions dated 12.02.2020 stating that the land was required for assignment to landless poor for providing house sites under the scheme “ Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu ” and proposed the land value at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre as exgratia including 30% of solatium for DKT patta lands, total value of Rs.14,91,324/- and a letter was addressed to the concerned authorities and awaiting orders for payment.

¶9

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also enclosed relevant documents to show the classification.

¶10

As seen from the material on record, the petitioner was allotted land in dispute by granting DKT patta under Ex-service Men quota and in view of G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 04.07.2016 the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfer) Act, has no application and this cannot be included in prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A of Registration Act, at the same time no objection certificate is not required for alienation of such land. Further, when the respondents are intending to take possession of the property, they

¶11

¶12

are bound to adhere to G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016. Even assuming for a moment, that the respondents are entitled to resume the land, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Paragraph-4 of the G.O.Ms.No.259. According to Paragraph-4 (i) whenever the assigned lands are required for public purpose, the lands shall be resumed as per the conditions of patta. Further mandates that compensation for resumed land shall be paid on par with patta lands as per the provisions of Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law relating to Land Acquisition. When such G.O was issued, the Government can pass an order as per G.O.Ms.No.259. The petitioner cannot be dispossessed by paying mere exgratia. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay exgratia and other permissible amount by way of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259.

¶13

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Dated 12.02.2020 KA

¶17

Bojja Ramalinga Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bojja Ramalinga Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renati Lakshmidevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

PosimsettiMallikharjunaRao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Datla Veera Venkata Narasimha Siva Rama Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karanam Sangameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Undru Ratnaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parimi Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh