Allowed

B.Kanakaiah, v. The Secretary to Govt of A.P.

Telangana HC28 Mar 2022WA/2334/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a lower court order denying full market value compensation to land assignees. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedent stating assignees are treated as owners, the bench held they are entitled to the market value fixed for patta holders under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and directed recalculation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to recalculate compensation and pay the market value fixed for patta land (Rs.20,000 per acre). Exercise to be concluded within three months.

B.Kanakaiah, Vs The Secretary to Govt of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF X/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARIVIA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUIMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO; 2334 OF 2005

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.21B23 o'f 2001 dt.27-09-2005. on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Kanakaiah,, S/o.Kotaiah, Fl/o.Gazulapuram Village, Tripuram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

P.Venkataiah,, S/o.Guptaiah, R/o.Gazulapuram Village, Tripuram lvlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

P.Narsaiah ( Died ) As per LR. Seshamma,, D/o.Narasaiah, Rl/o.Gazulapuram Village, Tripuram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

The Secretary to Govt of A.P., B-Block, Secretaraiat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Nalgonda District,. Nalgonda.

¶16

The Executive Engineer ( Construction), Railways, Miryalguda Division, Nalgonda District.

¶17

The Revenue Divisional Officer, lvliryalaguda.

¶18

The Special Deputy Collector ( LA), Railways, Nalgonda.

¶19

.RESPONDENTS

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.S.RAHUL REDDY, ADV FOR SRI.S.LAKSHIUA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'1 , 2 & 4 : GP FOR LAND ACOUISITION

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 5 : SRI.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following JUDGMENT : -

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICESATISHCHANDRASHARMA} AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE ABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI}

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.2334^{of 2OOS}

¶27

JUDGMENT:^{(Per the LIon'bIe the ChiefJusticeSatish ChandtaSharrna)}

¶28

The present writ appeal^{is arising out of an order} dated 27.09.2005^{passed by the learnedSingle Judge} in W.P.No.2 t823 of^2OOl.

¶29

The undisputed facts^{of the case reveal that the} appellants/writ^{petitioners, who were owners of the} lald of an extent of^{Acs.9.20 guntasin Survey No'110} situated at Gajulapuram^{Village, came up before this} Court in the matter^{of grant of compensation'It was} stated by the appellants/writ^{petitioners that one} P.Narsaiah, the father^{of the appeliant No'3/writ} petitioner No.3, was the^{assignee of the land and the} appellants No.1 and 2lwrit^{petitionersNo'1 and 2} purchased Acs.S.OO of land^{each from the assignee} .under registered sale deeds- dated 24.06'1970^ar,d

¶30

<br>

¶31

30.12.1974. The land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying Broad^Gauge Railway Line and the respondents took^possessionof the land on 10.10.1980. An award was^passedon 20.03.1982. However, in respect of the assigned land and in respect of the land of patta holders,^two different rates were arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer. A writ petition i.e., W.P.No.9267 of^1993, claiming compensation at par was preferred. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 02.09.1997 and the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced^as under:-

¶32

"In the instant cases, no condition of resumption or acquisition without^paying compensation is forthcoming. As such,^the principle laid down in the above decision applies to the cases on hand. Hence, we hold the^petitioners in all the writ petitions are entitled^for compensation.

¶33

We direct the Petitioners to give representations to the authorities^concerned without two months from the date^{of receipt of this} order seeking compensation^{and on receipt of such}

¶34

¶35

¶36

representations, the authorities shall pass orders awarding compensation within three months thereafter.

¶37

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs."

¶38

Thereafter, an SLP was preferred in the matter and the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP No. 1206 of 1999, dated 10.12.1999, is reproduced as under:-

¶39

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State shall pay compensation to the respondents, for resuming the land which was assigned to them, according to GO.No.13O7 dated 23.12.1993. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to accept compensation under the said G.O. and does not now claim compensation under any other provision of law. [n view of this agreement between the parties this Special kave Petition does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly."

¶40

Before the Hon'bie Supreme Court,

¶41

G.O.Ms.No. 1307, dated 23.12.1993, was brought to the notice by the State Government and the said

¶42

Government Order reflects that compensation was paid

¶43

¶44

¶45

at market value. The appeliant No.1/writ petitioner No.1 has received Rs.5,623/- for Acs.3"44 guntas. The appellant No.2/writ petitioner No.2 has received Rs.5,185/- for Acs.3.22 guntas and the appellant No.3/writ petitioner No.3 has received Rs.3,067/- for Acs.2.04 guntas. The appellants/writ petitioners again came up before this Court stating that they have not been paid the market value and the issue before the learned Single Judge was in respect of the market value. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.21823 of 200 1, and the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

¶46

'11. A reading of above referred G.O. gives no room for any doubt that the petitioners are entitled to only market value as exgratia. They are not entitled to market value as fixed by the Civil Courts on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer - 4ft respondent in the Award proceedings NO.A336/81, dated 20-3- i 982 acquisitioned the land into two categories and they are:

¶47

1) Dry Dubba Chalka

¶48

II) Dry lands mixed with black soil

¶49

Survey Nos. 87,88,89, 1O1,102,103,1O4 and¹¹¹ are under 'A' category. Survey^{Nos.97,98and 99} are under Category 'B'. Market^{value of 'A' category} land has been fixed at Rs. 1,270/- and'B'category land has been fixed at Rs. 1,590/-. The land of the petitioners is in Survey No. 1 10. Since the land of the petitioners is falling nearby^'A' Category^land, the 4ft respondent is^justified in taking the^market value at Rs. i,270/- per acre. The total amount payable to the petitioners have been arrived at Rs.13,875/- which includes market value^{plus 157o} solatium. Exgratia for assigned land came to be granted under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-L2-1993. The Government took possession of the land on 101O-198O for formation of new railway bridge from Bibinagar to Nadigudem. Till the Government issuing G.O.Ms.No. l3OT Revenue Assignment Department, dated 23-12-1993, payment of compensation to the assigned lands was not permissible. For the first time, the compensation to the assigned lands by way of ex-gratia cam6 to be granted under G.O.Ms.No. 1307, dated 23-12-1993. The petitioners became entitled to ex-gratia on the issuance of G.O.Ms. No.1307 dated 23-12-1993 and the amount payable to the petitioners has become due as on that date. Since the possession / of the lands has been taken over by the

¶50

¶51

¶52

Government^{in the year 1980 itself i e' on 10- 10-} 1980 and the^{amountof ex-gratia payable as per} G.O.Ms.No.^{13O7 has not been paid till 14-8-2001'} the petitioners^{are entitledto interestat least from} the date on^{which ex-gratia has becomepayableto} them.

¶53

In view of^{the above discussion IIind the} petitioners are^{entitledto claiminterest@ Rs' 9oln} from the date^{of issuanceof G'O'Ms NO' 1307} Revenue

¶54

(Assignment -l)^{Department,dated 23-12-1993to} the date of^{paymenti.e. 14-8-2O01'}

¶55

Accordingly,^{the writ petition is disposed of} directing the^{respondentsto pay interestat 9o/o per} annum from^{the date of G.O Ms' No' 1307 i e' from} 23-12-7993 to^{the date of payment (14-8-2OO1)} within two months^{from the date of receipt of a} copy of this^{order.No order as to costs "}

¶56

Before this^{Court the solitary questionwhich} remains to^{be answered is in respect of [he market} value. The^{issue is whether the assigned land and the} private patta land^{will have the same matket value or} not.

i I

.t7

A Larger Bench of this Court in the case of LAO - cum RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad, and others v. Mekala Pandu and othersl

¶61

in paragraph 109 therein has held as under:-

¶62

" i 09. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the fu1l market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in 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 lurther hold that 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 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the pr-ovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on rhe right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land."

¶63

'zoo+ 1zy^{ALD 451} {LB)

Meaning thereby, it has been held that in respect of the assigned land and the patta land, the market value has to be the same.

¶68

In the light of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants/writ petitioners are certainly entitled for the same market va-lue which has been fixed 1n respect of the patta land and therefore, the respondents are directed to recalculate the compensation 1n respect of the appellants/writ petitioners also by paying them the market value which has been paid to the holders of patta land, as determined by the Civil Court i.e., @ Rs.20,000/-^per acre under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The exercise of paying the difference be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶69

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands

"rllowed.

i I

The miscellaneous applications^pending, if^any,

¶75

shall stald closed. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶76

SD/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q)

¶77

SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To 1. The Secretary to Govt of Telangana, Secretaraiat' Hyderabad' 2. Tne District^{iollector, Nalqonda District'Nalgon0a'} 3. ii;; il;;;iire^Engineer iL;nstruction)'^{Railwavs' Miryalguda Division'} Naloonda District

¶79

+. inin"uenue^{Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda} .. , ;. iii; d;;;i.i-oeputv^{coltector ( LA),'Railwavs' Nalgonda'} o. irl dc. i"^{cp rdn r-nr'ro nbourslrloN,High eourt for the Stateof}

¶80

Telanqana^{at HYderabad. [OUT]} z. oi'J'ct i"^{siir.'s.r-AxsnvtA REDDY,Advocate[oPUC]} ;. 5;i; cc i"^{sni.p.cnNGA RAMI REDDYAdvocate[oPUC]}

¶81