Allowed

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Mar 2011WP/28320/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that denying compensation to an assignee of a D-Form patta based on a condition of development and alleged deemed resumption was unsustainable. A supplemental award and compensation, including interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were granted.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pass a supplemental award and pay compensation under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within three months.

P. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28320 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 P. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, R/o. Goparajuvari Street, Vanapalligudem, Tadepalligudum, West Godavari District.

¶8

2 P. Srinivas Rao, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, R/o. Goparajuvari Street, Vanapalligudem, Tadepalligudum, West Godavari District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Collector, Krishna, Chilakalapudi.

¶13

3 The Revenue Divisional officer, Masulipatnam.

¶14

4 The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction declaring the action of the Respondents (1) in not including the Petitioner's land in the Award No. 2/84 dt. 3-1-1984 (b) in not passing Supplemental Award; and (c) not paying the eligible compensation for the lands which were acquired by them after due notification as per the Act (d) in not considering the representation dated 10-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently directing the respondents to pass the Supplemental Award for the payment of compensation to the petitioner and also to pay the petitioner the amountof compensation together with interest and additional compensation for the unwarranted compensation together with interest and additional compensation for the unwarranted hardships that the petitioner was subjected to and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶19

The Court made the following :

¶20

O R D E R:-

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not passing award in respect of Ac.0.48 cents of land in Sy.No.207/1 in Award No.2 of 1984, dated 03.01.1984, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to pass a supplemental award for payment of compensation along with interest and additional compensation.

¶22

The mother of the petitioners was granted D-From Patta in respect of Ac.0.48 cents of land in Sy.No.207/1. The land in question along with other lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in February, 1981. Advance possession was taken in the year 1982. However, when the award was passed the land in question was deleted from the award in the year 1984. The petitioners and their mother went on making representations to the respondents, but without any positive result. After failing to get relief from different Fora like Lok Adalat, the petitioners filed this writ petition, as their mother died on 16.03.2001 executing a will bequeathing the property in favour of the petitioners.

¶23

In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar, Krishna District, the fact that the land was assigned to the mother of the petitioners and that the same was acquired under the provisions of the Act is not disputed. The further fact that the land in question was excluded from Award No.2 of 1984 is also admitted. But, the only ground on which compensation was not paid was that the D-Form patta contains a condition that the assignee shall develop the land within a period of three years and that as the same was not developed, it is deemed that the land has been resumed to the

¶24

Government.

¶25

In my considered view, the above-mentioned reason for denying compensation to the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. The respondents have not produced a copy of the patta. Even assuming that the patta contains a condition stipulating that the assignee shall develop the land within three years, unless the said condition contains a deemed resumption, the respondents cannot presume that the assignment has been deemed to have been resumed. Therefore, the purported ground of deemed resumption, on which the assignee has been denied compensation, cannot be sustained. Except the self-serving statement of the respondents that the assignee has not developed the land, no material was relied upon by the respondents in support thereof. Whether the land was developed or not was a pure question of fact, which could be ascertained only after a notice was given to the assignee and an order of resumption passed. Having assigned the land, it is not open to the respondents to deny the property to the assignee without following the procedure contained in the patta conditions. As the respondents failed to show that the patta contains a condition of deemed resumption, the petitioner cannot be denied compensation.

¶26

The next question is as to what is the compensation that the petitioners are entitled to. I n State of Andhra Pradesh v Bondapalli Sanyas i^[1] , a Five-Judge Bench of this Court held that if the land is acquired through the proceedings initiated under the Act, the assignee of a DKT patta is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly proceedings were initiated under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act in respect of the land in question, but subsequently the land was deleted from the award on a totally erroneous premise that the land is deemed to have been resumed. Therefore, following the judgment in Bondapalli Sanyasi (supra), the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation on par with the owners of the land acquired under Award No. 2 of 1984 dated 03.01.1984.

¶27

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The

¶28

respondents are directed to pass a supplemental award in terms of Award No.2 of 1984 dated 03.01.1984 in respect of the above-mentioned land of the petitioners and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act including Section 34 of the Act, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶29

______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 27^th July, 2009

¶30

bcj

¶31

[1] 2002(2) ALD 1(LB)

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Srinivas Rao Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer, Parvathipuram

G. Narsimha Gupta Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram

Chintakindi Laxmamma, Vs The District Collector

Reddanna, Vs T.Swaroop

Sri M.V. Krishna Rao, Vs Sri P. Seena Reddy

Smt. D. Aruna, Vs The Commissioner