Dismissed

The Govt.of Ap by Secy.Irrigation and Power and 3 Others v. v.Ramaswamy, Karimnagar and Another

Telangana HC12 Oct 2022WA/239/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench dismissed the writ appeal challenging a single judge's order that allowed respondents to claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following the dismissal of the State's appeal against the leading Mekala Pandu decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

The Govt.of Ap by Secy.Irrigation and Power and 3 Others… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶3

W.A.No. 239 of 2008

¶4

JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶5

Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned

¶6

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of learned Government

¶7

Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellants and Mr. V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

This writ appeal is directed against the order

¶9

dated 05.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.27983 of 1995 filed by the respondents as the writ petitioners.

¶10

Respondents had filed the related writ petition assailing

¶11

conditions (a), (b) and (d) of Para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 of the Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, Government of Telangana, as being contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶12

::2::

¶13

Learned Single Judge perused the impugned conditions and

¶14

noted that by the aforesaid conditions, the State Government had ordered payment of only ex gratia amount to the assignees while clarifying that the assignees would not be entitled to claim benefits under Sections 28-A, 23(2) and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter). Learned Single Judge relied upon and referred to a Full Bench (7-Judge) decision of this Court

¶15

in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu¹ wherein it was held as follows:

¶16

In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full 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 further 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,

¶17

1 2004 2 ALD 451

¶18

::3::

¶19

1894, the assignees shall be entitled to 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 on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.

¶20

Following the aforesaid decision, learned Single Judge held

¶21

that respondents would be entitled to claim compensation as and when their lands are resumed for public purpose. When it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the Government had preferred appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision rendered in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu (supra), learned Single Judge clarified that mandamus issued would be subject to result of the civil appeal pending before the Supreme Court.

¶22

We have been informed at the bar that the civil appeal preferred by the State against the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mekala Pandu (supra) has since been dismissed.

¶23

::4::

¶24

That being the position, we see no reason to entertain the

¶25

present appeal. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶27

dismissed.

¶28

UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

¶29

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

¶30

Date: 13.10.2022 LUR/SUS

The Govt.of Ap by Secy.Irrigation and Power and 3 Others v. v.Ramaswamy, Karimnagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Govt.of Ap by Secy.Irrigation and Power and 3 Others v. v.Ramaswamy, Karimnagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandandi Jagjeevan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Prl. Secretary, Primary Education Department, Hyd and 3 Others Vs Chairman, Satya Deva Ttc College for Girls, Guntur and Another

M/S.M.R.F.Limited Vs Mrf.Mazdoor Sangh,and 3 Others

Secy Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Dept, New Delhi Vs Shree Vaageswari Ayurvedic Medical College, Karimnagar

Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Hyd,and 5 Vs B.Srinivas Reddy,R.R.Dist

Mirza Mustafa Ali Baig S/oLate Mirza Abbas Ali Baig Vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District