Dismissed

The State of andhra Pradesh, v. Boyana Tavudu

Telangana HC29 Jul 2010AS/2955/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal suit challenges a decree granting compensation for land resumed by the State. The court rejected the State's argument that a no-compensation clause in the land assignment deprives recipients of rights. Relying on constitutional principles of distributive justice, the court held that recipients are entitled to compensation despite the clause and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed upholding the lower court's decree for compensation.

The State of andhra Pradesh, Vs Boyana Tavudu — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.2955 of 1987

¶3

Dated:29.07.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Collector, Vizianagaram, And another.

¶6

….Appellants

¶7

And

¶8

B.Tavudu, And others.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO APPEAL SUIT No.2955 of 1987

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

The State represented by its District Collector, and Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Vengalarayasagaram Project, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District, are the appellants. They were defendants (hereafter referred to as defendants) in O.S.No.142 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bobbili. The suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 14 (hereafter referred to as plaintiffs) for recovery of amount towards the value of Acs.30.00 of land and for damages for use and occupation of the land. The same was decreed by the lower Court on 02.07.1987 for a sum of Rs.90,000/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the State is in appeal before this Court.

¶13

The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule land in survey Nos.185, 137 and 134/2 situated at Mamidipalli Village of Salur Mandal in Vizianagaram District, is a Government land, that the same was assigned to them by way of D-Form pattas, that the defendants acquired the land in 1984 for formation of earthern bund of Vengalarayasagar Project. Therefore, they claim damages. The suit was filed after issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil

¶14

Procedure, 1908.

¶15

The second defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the District Collector. The allegation that the plaintiffs were assigned land in 1972 was admitted. Claiming paramount ownership over the land, defendants pleaded that the claim of the plaintiffs for compensation and the amounts towards damages are untenable, and that the plaintiffs were not granted absolute rights over the land.

¶16

The trial Court framed as many as nine issues. Plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The Deputy Tahsildar from the Office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Parvatipuram, deposed as D.W.1, but no documentary evidence was brought in. Considering the evidence and Ex.A1, being G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 09.02.1984, and Ex.A2, being G.O.Ms.No.1185, dated 27.07.1981, the trial Court rejected the plea of the defendants, and determined the amount payable to the plaintiffs to the extent of which the decree was passed.

¶17

In this appeal, Assistant Government Pleader contends that the plaintiffs were assigned land for cultivation with a clause that the Government is entitled to resume the land at any time whenever it is required for public purpose. Therefore, according to her, when the land is resumed, no compensation need be paid, and the claim for crop damage is unsustainable. Placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v.

¶18

Mekala Pandu^[1] , Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the view taken by the Five Judge Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh v Bondapalli Sanyas i^[2] has since been overruled in Mekala Pandu and hence plaintiffs’ claim has been rightly allowed.

¶19

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the persons who were granted assignment by way of D-Form patta are entitled to payment of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the lands are resumed by the Government for public purpose.

¶20

There is no dispute that the plaintiffs were assigned land in 1972. The plea of the plaintiffs was categorically admitted in the written statement of the second defendant. There is also no dispute that the land was being cultivated in 1972, and further indisputably, the land was acquired for forming bund of Vengalarayasagar dam. Without any doubt, thus the land was utilized for public purpose, and therefore, the ratio in Mekala Pandu would apply. In the said judgment, after reviewing the law on the subject including the decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v Peda Chinnayya^[3] and

¶21

Bondapalli Sanyasi, the Full Bench laid down as under.

¶22

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the recipients had accepted the assignment subject to 'no compensation clause' and that they will not object to the resumption of the assigned lands for a "public purpose, they are entitled to assert that any such action on the part of the authorities will be in violation of their guaranteed fundamental rights. How far the argument regarding the existence and scope of the right claimed by the recipients is well-founded is another matter. But, the argument has to be examined despite the concession.

¶23

In the matter of distribution of material resources of the community to the vulnerable sections of the society by the State in furtherance of its constitutional obligations no argument can be heard from the State contending that the recipient of the benefit may either accept with the restrictions or not to accept the benefit at all. The whole idea of distributive justice is to empower the weaker sections of the society and to provide them their share of cake in the material resources of the community of which they were deprived from times immemorial for no fault of theirs. Having resolved to extend the benefits as a welfare measure, no unconstitutional condition can be imposed depriving the recipients of the benefits of their legitimate right to get compensation in case of taking over of the benefit even for a valid public purpose. The recipients cannot be at the mercy of the State forever.

¶24

Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.

¶25

__________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶26

29.07.2010

¶27

¶28

[1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)

¶29