Disposed

T Jayamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Apr 2024WP/741/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An assignee's land was acquired for an industrial park; she received only ex-gratia while other landowners got compensation. Following a Full Bench ruling that assignees are entitled to full compensation as owners, the court directed payment of the differential amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

3rd respondent directed to pay differential compensation to the petitioner within three months; no costs.

T Jayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATT|

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 741 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.Jayamma, W/o. Subrahmanyarn, Aged 68 years, R/o. Racherla Village Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati. District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, A.P. Secretariat, Vclagapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶13

The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurupet, Tirupati District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati Disrict.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not paying compensation to the petitioner in to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents i n

¶17

Sy.No.108/3 of Chinna Panduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in Sy.No.108/3 of Chinna Panduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to ensure that no development activity is carried out on the lands of the petitioner to an extent^{ofAc.1.00centsin} Sy.No. 108/3 of Chinna Panduru Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitloner(s): SRI. V VINOD K REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 4: GP FOR LAND AQUISITION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.741 of 2023

¶26

T. Jayamma, W/o. Subrahmanyam, aged 68 years, R/o. Racherla Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupathi District.

¶27

...Petitioner

¶28

Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others.

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner ; Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy Counsel for respondents : GP for Land Acquistion

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner in respect of land of an extent of Ac. 1-00 cents in Sy.No.^108/3of Chinna Panduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati^District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Heard Sri G. Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the' petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing^for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶34

Page 2 of 6

¶35

¶36

SRS, J W P.N0 741 of 2023

¶37

In the affidavit, it was contended, inter-alia, that the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac. 1-00 cents in Sy.No.108/3 vide DKT patta No.117/4/1404 in the year^1994.For establishment of industrial park, the land of the petitioner^and others was acquired. The respondents failed to pay the compensation and hence, the above writ petition is^filed.

¶38

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 4*^ respondent. It was contended, inter-alia, that the translated copy of DKT patta vide No.47/4/1404 stood in the name of A. Peeramma wife of Guravayya. On perusal of manual 1B register, it was^foundthat the pattadar passbook was issued to T. Jayamma, wife of Subramanyam vide katha no.202 in Sy.No. 108/3 in respect^of land of an extent of Ac. 1-00 cents. An extent of Ac. 1-00 cents in Sy.No. 108/3 was assigned to the petitioner and her^namewas entered into web land in the year 2011 vide katha No.202. Exgratia was fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue Assignment (Departmnet-I) dated 14.09.2012. Since the petitioner^hasbeenin possession and enjoyment of the property for 5 years ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,62,500/- was paid to the petitioner through NEFT transfer vide NEFT/ANDBN1822674 on 16.10.2018. The petitioner, in fact, received the amount. Eventually, paid to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that^inthe translated copy of the DKT patta, the patta number was wrongly mentioned, however, the original DKT patta number is No.47/4/1404. He would submit that since there is no dispute regarding grant of DKT patta, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

SRS, J W P.No.741 of 2023

¶42

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). Learned counsel places reliance upon the order passed in W.P.No.16739 of 2020.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on contra, would contend that the petitioner’s land of an extent of^Ac.1-00cents was acquired vide DKT patta No.47/4/1404. The petitioner^was granted ex-gratia as per category C of G.O.Ms.No.571^Revenue Assignment (Department-1) dated 14.09.2012, however,^learned Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute regarding the grant of DKT patta in favour of the petitioner in view of^paraNos.6and 7 of the averments made in the counter affidavit. He^wouldalso submit that the petitioner was paid ex-gratia and the^samewas deposited to the petitioner’s bank account.

¶44

The point for consideration is;

¶45

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation^onpar with compensation awarded to the other landowners as held in Lao-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Divisioni vs Mekala Pandu^?”

¶46

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was granted an extent of^Ac.1-00cents in Sy.No. 108/3 of Chinna Panduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal vide DKT patta No.47/4/1404. The name of the^petitioner was also recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was issued to her. The petitioner’s land was acquired for the

¶47

1 2004 (2) ALT 546

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

SRS, J W.P.No.741 of 2023

¶50

purpose of establishment of industrial park. Though in the writ petition it was contended that the petitioner was not paid compensation, however, as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner was paid ex-gratia^ofanamountof Rs. 1,62,500/-.

¶51

In Mekalapandu’s case, the Full Bench of Composite High Court held that:

¶52

“The assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value^oftheland and other benefits on par with full owners of the land^evenin cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further^holdthat 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^ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be^entitledto 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^onthe right of the assignee to claim full compensation as^ownerofthe land."

¶53

The referred judgment of Full Bench was confirmed in^SLP. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed.

¶54

Since there is no dispute that the petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.108/3 and the said^landwas acquired for establishment of industrial park, the 3''^ respondent ought to have determined the compensation on par with^other land owners.

¶55

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid to other^assignees on par with private patta landowners. However, as discussed

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

SRS, J W.P.NO.741 of 2023

¶58

supra the petitioner was not paid compensation. The petitioner was paid ex-gratia as per G.O. In fact, the authorities ought to have paid compensation.

¶59

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3^*^ respondent to pay differential amount, payable to the petitioner qua the land resumed, mentioned supra, to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period^ofthree (03) months from today. There shall be no order as^tocosts.

¶60

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall stand dismissed.

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

SD/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD assistant registrar SECTlbNOF^ER

¶63

¶64