Yerra China Somulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions and the facts arising out of all these Writ Petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

¶29

Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.43730 of 2016, 22037 of 2018 & 110 of 2019, Sri U.D. Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6455 of 2022, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6252 of 2021 and Smt. S. Pranathi, Learned Special Government Pleader in the office of the Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents & Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶30

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, had allotted an extent of Ac.201.80 cents of land, in various survey numbers of Vangali Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to the Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy. The alienation of this land was done, under G.O.Ms.No.332, dated 21.07.2016, and G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, claiming ownership, occupation and other rights over an extent of Ac.20.88 cents of this land, had approached this Court by way of the above Writ Petitions complaining of non-payment of compensation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016, the provisions

¶31

3

¶32

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶33

of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “Act 30 of 2013”), the direction of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors., Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors.,¹ as well as G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012.

¶34

The case of the petitioners, as set out by Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, is as follows:-

¶35

a) Ac.10.61 cents of land has been assigned to eight persons who are all petitioners, in W.P.Nos.22037 of 2018 & W.P.No.110 of 2019 and about 10 persons are in occupation of the land and cultivating the same, without D-Form pattas, for an extent of Ac.10.27 cents. Apart from this, about 10 persons, who are landless agricultural workers and are dependent their livelihood on the aforesaid Ac.20.88 cents of land, have also been affected.

¶36

b) As of today, the assignees holding D-Form pattas had been paid compensation, as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 on a market value of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. The persons in occupation of the land, without D-form pattas, were paid ex-gratia amounts of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. No rehabilitation program had been taken up for the remaining 10 agricultural labourers, who are all the petitioners in this batch of cases.

¶37

1 2004 2 ALD 451

¶38

4

¶39

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶40

c) The market value of the land is not Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, but Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. The Communication bearing Rc.No.638/2015/E2, dated 16.02.2017, between the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Special Chief Secretary of the Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada, and G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, show that even the respondents have fixed the market value of the land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. As far as the agricultural labourers are concerned, no steps for rehabilitation have been taken despite a direction of this Court, dated 30.09.2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.6455 of 2022, to conduct a survey for ascertaining the status of the agricultural labourers and for submission of a report in this regard.

¶41

d) The case of the persons, who had been assigned pattas, is that the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors., Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors., required the authorities to pay compensation, on par with the private patta holders, on the basis of the principles of compensation set out, in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As the said Act was now been replaced with Act 30 of 2013, a similar exercise, by applying the principles of calculation of compensation, contained in Act 30 of 2013, should be carried out and compensation should be paid on that basis. The assignees relied upon the G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016, which stipulated that the assignees should

¶42

5

¶43

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶44

be paid compensation on par with the private land holders and that the calculation of compensation should be in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 2013.

¶45

e) The case of the occupants of the land is that they would have to be treated as land owners, in view of Section-3 (r) of Act 30 of 2013 and that compensation, on par with the assignees of the land, would have to be paid to the occupants of the land. Apart from this, the occupants of the land would have to be treated under the ambit of “land owners” as per Section-3(r) of Act 30 of 2013 read with the G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and the G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012.

¶46

f) According to the occupants, G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, which set out the policy of the Government in relation to assignment of land, had stipulated that lands at the disposal of the Government should be assigned only to landless poor persons and G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, reiterates this policy. This would mean that the occupants are entitled for grant of pattas and consequently, would fall within the ambit of Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013.

¶47

g) As far as the landless poor are concerned, they would have to be treated as displaced persons, who are entitled to the benefit of the rehabilitation and resettlement steps, provided in Schedule-2 of Act 30 of 2013 .

¶48

6

¶49

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶50

The stand of the State, as set out by Smt. S. Pranathi, Learned Special Government Pleader, in the office of the Learned Advocate General is as follows:-

¶51

i) There is no dispute that the assignees holding valid D-Form pattas are to be paid compensation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016 as well as the direction of the Larger Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors .

¶52

ii) Compliance with the aforesaid directions would require the State to fix the market value and to calculate compensation in terms of the principles set out in Act 30 of 2013, as far as the assignees are concerned. Such an exercise was carried out and market value was fixed at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. The compensation payable on that basis has already been disbursed to the assignees and nothing further survives, as far as the assignees are concerned.

¶53

iii) The question of applicability of benefits set out in Schedule-II of Act 30 of 2013, to the occupants of the land, would not arise as the rehabilitation package given to these persons, by way of payment of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, covers all these issues. It is specifically contended that the provisions of Schedule-II of Act 30 of 2013 would not be applicable in this case.

¶54

7

¶55

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶56

iv) The survey directed by this Court, by Order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.No.6455 of 2022, does not direct the respondents to file a report after conduct of a survey.

¶57

v) The fixation of market value at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre, in the Communication between the District Collector and the Special Chief Secretary as well as the G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, was only for the purposes of fixing the market value for alienation to the university and the said exercise cannot be taken to mean that market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre was fixed for the purposes of payment of compensation. In any event, the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation, per acre, was accepted by the displaced persons and the present claim for higher amounts is only an afterthought. In view of the acceptance of earlier amounts, such a claim cannot arise.

¶58

vi) It is also submitted that persons in occupation of about 200 acres had been paid compensation and owners of land to an extent of 180 acres were paid compensation at the rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre as an agreed amount.

¶59

Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply submits as follows:-

¶60

i) The Communication between the District Collector and the Special Chief Secretary and the figures set out in G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, shows that the Government has fixed the market value of the land

¶61

8

¶62

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶63

as Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. It would make no difference, whether the market rate was fixed for purposes of collecting such money from the allotee or to pay the land loser. Once a market value has been fixed, it would apply both for alienation purposes as well as for acquisition purposes and compensation would have to be paid on that basis.

¶64

ii) The question of acceptance of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre by the petitioners, before this Court, does not arise as none of the petitioners had accepted the said amount and consent of other persons, cannot bind the petitioners herein.

¶65

Consideration of the Court:-

¶66

There is no dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, that the assignees, holding valid D-form pattas, are entitled to payment of compensation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, dated 21.06.2016. There is also no dispute that the direction of the Larger Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cumRevenue Divisional Officer, Chevella & Ors., Vs. Mekala Pandu & Ors., granting compensation, on par with the private patta holders, to assignees, whose lands are resumed, would be entitled to the same compensation as that of the private patta holders.

¶67

The only dispute, between the assignees and the respondents is the market value that is to be fixed, for calculation of compensation. The State

¶68

9

¶69

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶70

proposed a market rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre while the assignees claim a market rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre.

¶71

Neither the assignees nor the respondent authorities have placed any material before this Court, to ascertain the market value of land in question. The Letter bearing No.15/2025, dated 07.02.2025, sent by the Joint Sub-Registrar-32, Sabbavaram to the Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandal, states that no market value had been fixed for lands in survey Nos.135 & 241 of Vangali Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, as the land in these survey numbers was Government Land. However, the market value fixed for the entire village from 01.05.2013 to 01.05.2016, was given at Rs.7,00,000/- as on 01.04.2013, Rs.8,00,000/- as on 01.08.2017, Rs.8,50,000/- as on 01.08.2019 and Rs.18,00,000/- as on 01.02.2025.

¶72

However, the assignees rely upon G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017 as well as the communication between the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Special Chief Secretary of the Government to contend that the Government itself had fixed the market value of the land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. This contention of the petitioners is disputed by the respondents. On 16.02.2017, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam had addressed acommunication bearing Rc.No.638/2015/E2, to the Special Chief Secretary to the Government and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. This communication was in relation to the alienation proposals to alienate an extent of Ac.201.80 cents of land to the Indian Institute of

¶73

10

¶74

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶75

Petroleum & Energy (IIPE), Visakhapatnam. The communication discussed various aspects of such alienation including classification of land, Gram Panchayat resolution etc. This communication also discussed the market value that needs to be fixed for alienating the land to IIPE authorities. The District Collector states that the information submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram, in relation to the sale transactions, in Vangali Village from 01.05.2013 to 01.05.2016 would place the basic value at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, basing on the local enquiries had recommended fixation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre as market value for the lands. Apart from this, it is also stated that the Joint Collector Visakhapatnam had inspected the lands which are proposed to be alienated and recommended a market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre as the market value for purposes of alienation. Finally, the District Collector recommended alienation of the aforesaid Ac.201.80 cents on payment of prevailing market value at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre.

¶76

The Government, on the basis of the aforesaid communication of the District Collector, had issued G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, observing that the District Collector recommended payment of market value at the rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre had ordered alienation of the Government land on free of cost basis.

¶77

The communication of the District Collector, dated 16.02.2017, which was noticed in GO.Ms.No.499, dated 09.11.2017, was for fixation of

¶78

11

¶79

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶80

market value for alienation of land to IIPE. This fixation of market value did not have anything to do with the price that was proposed to be paid to the assignees whose lands were being resumed. The market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre appears to have been arrived at, by way of an independent assessment, by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Joint Collector. The assessment made by these two officials, appears to have been accepted by the District Collector who recommended market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre as the cost recoverable from IIPE for alienation of the land.

¶81

In such circumstances, the contention of the Government is that the Rs.13,00,000/- was anagreed figure, under which payments were made to all the displaced persons and that was the basis on which the market value for alienation was fixed, cannot be accepted.

¶82

The tone and tenor of the communication, dated 16.02.2017, of the District Collector, shows that the assessment of market value was done independently and not on the basis of any agreed upon figure between the persons, whose lands were being taken away by the acquisition authorities.

¶83

In the circumstances, it must be held that the admitted market value, fixed by the Government itself was Rs.13,00,000/- per acre. Consequently, the assignees would be entitled to compensation calculated on the market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre.This Court has been informed that compensation by taking a market value of the land at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre

¶84

12

¶85

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶86

has been paid out to the assignees and that compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre has also been deposited with the Court.

¶87

As the market value of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre has already been fixed by the Government, compensation would have to be calculated and paid out on that basis. Accordingly, the assignees who are the petitioners in the present batch of cases, shall be entitled to receive compensation, which has already been deposited with this Court by fixing the market rate of the land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre.

¶88

In view of the fact that the compensation is being made out to the assignees in terms of Act 30 of 2013, the question of whether such assignees would fall within the definition of the land holder under Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013 need not be gone into in the present case, as the benefit of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 are being given to the assignees.

¶89

The occupants of the lands, who do not have D-form pattas, are also claiming the benefit under Act 30 of 2013 on the ground that they would fall within the meaning of land holders in Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013. Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013 reads as follows:-

¶90

“Section-3: Definition:

¶91

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) to (q)………

¶92

(r) "land owner " includes any person,

¶93

13

¶94

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶95

(i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or

¶96

(ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in force; or

¶97

(iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands; or

¶98

(iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court or Authority;”

¶99

A plain reading of this provision will bring within its ambit, only such persons, who are either having clear title to the land or such persons who would be entitled to grant title over the land. In the present case, the persons, who are in occupation of the land, cannot claim, as a matter of right, that they should be granted pattas over the land by the Government. The language of the provisions cannot be given such an extended meaning.

¶100

In such circumstances, the persons in occupation of the land, would not fall within the ambit of Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013 and subsequently, would not be entitled to any benefit under the said Act. However, the Government itself provided a rehabilitation package awarding a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre for such persons, as ex gratia amount. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that the occupants of the

¶101

land, even if they are excluded from the benefit under Section 3(r) of Act 30 of 2013, would still be entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Act 30 of

¶102

14

¶103

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶104

These benefits would be as enumerated under the second Schedule to Act 30 of 2013.

¶105

In the present case, the benefits that would be available under the II Schedule to Act 30 of 2013, would be – benefit Nos.4, 5, 6 & 10. Under benefit No.4, the affected family is entitled to one-time payment of Rs.5 lakhs or grant of jobs created through the project, at the rate, at least one member per affected family or annuity policies that shall pay not less than two thousand rupees per month, per family, for twenty years. Benefit No.5 provides for a monthly subsistence allowance equivalent to three thousand rupees per month for a period of one year from the date of the award. Benefit No.6 provides for financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- rupees as transportation cost for displaced families. Benefit No.10 would allow one-time resettlement allowance of Rs.50,000/- only.

¶106

As pointed out by Smt. S. Pranathi, Learned Special Government Pleader, the monetary value of these benefits would be lower than Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, which has already been paid out to the occupants. She would contend that the ex gratia paid out to the occupants, is sufficient for covering all the benefits that the occupants could claim. She would further submit that this contention is without prejudice to the basic stand of the Government that the occupants were not entitled for any of the benefits under Act 30 of 2013.

¶107

15

¶108

RRR,J & MRK,J W.P.No.43730/2016 & batch

¶109

This Court, is of the opinion that the benefits that would accrue to the occupants, even if they are to be given such benefits under Act 30 of 2013, are more than compensated by the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. In that view of the matter, the question of whether the occupants were entitled to the benefits of Act 30 of 2013 becomes academic and the same can be reserved for a better case.

¶110

This leaves the agricultural labourers who claim to have lost their livelihood, on account of the resumption of the land. Such displaced persons would definitely be entitled to the rehabilitation measures, provided under Act 30 of 2013.

¶111

Accordingly these writ petitions are disposed of in the following

¶112

manner:

¶113

The persons, to whom land had been assigned under D-form pattas, shall be entitled for payment of compensation, by taking the market value of the land at Rs.13,00,000/- per acre.

¶114

The other components of the compensation, including interest etc., shall be calculated on the basis of Act 30 of 2013.

¶115

The persons, who were in occupation of the land, without D-from pattas or documents of title, have already been paid Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and no further compensation is due to them.

¶116