Allowed

Kota Raju, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jan 2025WP/34477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that assignment patta holders are entitled to ex-gratia compensation equivalent to that paid to private patta holders upon resumption of their lands for NIMZ. The Court rejected the plea of delay and latches, directing authorities to pay the differential amount with interest within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay differential ex-gratia amount with accrued interest to petitioners within eight weeks, excluding amounts received in 2016.

Kota Raju, Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:34477 OF 2024

¶7

¶8

Eetween: 1. Kota Raju, S/o Kota Sanganna , Aged About 42years, Occ: Agriculture 2. Bangaru Srinivas, S/o Bangaru Kishatiah Aged About 52 years , Occ: Agriculture 3. Alge Premalamma , W/o Yesaiah, Aged About 58 years , Occ: Agriculturt 4. Mohammed sirajuddin, S/o Mohdmmed Moosa, Aged About 47 yearc, Occ: Agriculture 5. Mohammed Naseerudddin, S/o Mohammed Moosa, Aged About 54 years, Occ: Agriculture 6. Najimunnis a , C/o Mohammed Cfiand pasha Late , Aged About 54 years , Occ: Agricultiiid: 7. Noorjahan Begum , W/o Md l,t<ii:nuOOin, Aged About 58 years, Occ: Agric[jl B. Gunjeeti Bheemanna , S/o Gunjeteti,'Sa'ngappa, Aged About 5B years , occ: ngrkul$5€'.:: 9. Kota Digambar . S/o Mogullana Aged About 36 years , Occ: Agri 10. Chakali Nirmala, W/o Chakali *fffii'',r .?i^: Aged About 35 y€ars, occ: ngriiJffr$-ti:" ':"r,i;lt '^,'

..i-1

Kota Manik Rao , S/o Mogullanna ,' Aged About 39 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶13

12..Kallamla Nirmala, W/o Laxmaiah,. i Aged About 51^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶14

Kindidoddi Manjula , S/o Kindidoddi Ashok, Aged About 33 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶15

Kindoti Bujjamma , W/o Kindoti Sampathi, Aged About 45^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶16

Chekka Mogullama , W/o Ashappa. Aged About 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶17

l6.Yerolla Siromani , S/oPapappa ,

¶18

Aged About 60 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶19

Tuljamma , D/o Algi Balaiah,

¶20

Aged About 72 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶21

Kindidoddi Siromani , S/o Kindidoddi sidappa, Aged About 76 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶22

Jangali Sanganna , S/o langali Manenna, Aged About 45 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶23

¶24

Suryapeta Dattu , S/o Suryapet Venkatesham, Aged About 34 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶25

Sannaila Kalpana , W/o Sannaila Shyanl ,

¶26

Aged About 32 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶27

Sonnaila Jaipal , 5/6 Late S. Balaiah,

¶28

Aged About 31 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶29

¶30

M. Agamaiah, S/o M. Tuljappa, Aged About 42years, Occ: Agriculture 24. Begari Thukkappa , S/o Narsappa, Aged About 70 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶31

25..Begari Maruthi , S/o Sangappa, Aged About 58 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶32

Gunjati Nagamani , W/o Gunjati Nagappa, Aged About 48 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶33

Bandamidi Jyothi , S/o Bandamidi Samelu, Aged About 41 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶34

Algol Krishna, S/o Algol Lakshmaiah , Aged About 60 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶35

Algol Vasantha , C/o Algol Krishna, Aged About 52 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶36

Myatri Ramulamma , Wo Sanjeevkumar, Aged About 43 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶37

Golla Rajender, W/o Golla Mogalaiah, Aged About 60 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶38

Byagari Ramachander, S/o Sangappa , Aged About 68 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶39

Gunjata Shamaiah , S/o Gunjata Sangappa, Aged About 60 years , Occ: Agriculture I 34. Alge Shantamma , W /o Alge Raja Ratnam , Aged About 58 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶40

¶41

¶42

Suryapeta Anusuyamma , W/o Suryapeta Venkatasham, Aged About 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶43

Alige Nagamani , W/o Aliqe Anjaiah,

¶44

Aged About 53 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶45

Begari Sammaiah, S/o Narsaiah,

¶46

Aged About 73 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶47

Yerrolla Jayappa , S/o Yerrolla Narsappa,

¶48

Aged About 63 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶49

Narsaiah Gunjeeti.S /o Balappa,

¶50

Aged About 60 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶51

Errolla Samel , S/o Narsahappa,

¶52

Aged About 73 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶53

Alge Sanganna , S/o Bangarappa,

¶54

Aged About 65 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶55

Nagaram Gayappa , S/o Nagappa,

¶56

Aged About 76 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶57

Bangal Doddi Mallanna , S/o Bangal Daddi Siddappa , Aged About 56 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶58

Golla Chandranna , S/o Sayanna ,

¶59

Aged About 58-years , Occ: Agriculture

¶60

Chakali Venkatesham , S/o Chakali Anjaiah,

¶61

Aged About 37 years, Occ: Agrlculture

¶62

46: Jangeli Kalavathi , W/o langeli Sangaram ,

¶63

Aged About 56 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶64

¶65

¶66

Golla Manenna , S/o Golla yellappa,

¶67

Aged About 74 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶68

Erolla Narsimlu , S/o Erolla Mogalaiah,

¶69

Aged About 53 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶70

Narsimhulu , S/o papaiah,

¶71

Aged About 50 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶72

Kota Indramma , W/o Kota Naganna,

¶73

Aged-About 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶74

Bangarupoola Rathanamma , W/o Kistaiah ,

¶75

Aged About 73 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶76

Mathari Shamalamma , W/o Amurth,

¶77

Aged About 53 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶78

Mattam Amruthaiah Swamy, S/o Shankaraiah Swamy, Aged About 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶79

Keshamma , W/o Kindiodi yesaiah,

¶80

Aged About 31 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶81

Bandamidi Ratnam, S/o Sayanna,

¶82

Aged About 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶83

Begari Bichchamma , W/o Tukkappa,

¶84

Aged About 56 years , Occ: Ag riculture

¶85

Myatri Sanjeev kumar , S/o Samappa ,

¶86

Aged About 51 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶87

Chekka Narsaiah , S/o Chekka Sangappa ,

¶88

Aged Ab6ut 58'years, Occ: Agriculture

'....:,,

I I

Begari Peeramma , W/o Begari Narshimlu, Aged Abbut 44 years, Occ: Agriculture 60. Sonnyila Shantamma, W/o Sonnyila Ramaiah, Aged About 59 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶94

Begari Manemma , W/o Begari Bemanna, Aged About 68 years, Occ: Agriculture 62. Gunjati Jayamma , W/o Narshimlu, Aged About 46 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶95

Chintah Chettu Narsimlu , S/o Bagappa , Aged About 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶96

Billipuram Sarojamma , Wlo Bakkanna, Aged About 44 years , Occ: Ag ricu lture

¶97

Telugu Manjula , W/o Telugu Krishna , Aged About 41 years , Occ: Agriculture 66. Chintha Chettu Vinodha ,W/o Chintha Chettu Narsimlu, Aged About 43 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶98

Chitha Chettu Bagappa , S/o Chitha Chettu Narsappa , Aged About 73 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶99

Byagari Manaiah, S/o Sammappa, Aged About 72-years, Occ: Agriculture

¶100

Alige Thukkappa . S/o Alige Mollappa , Aged About 78 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶101

Police Patel Shankarappa , S/o Rama chandra , Aged About 63 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶102

¶103

¶104

Gunjati Narshimlu , S/o Sangappa,

¶105

Aged About 53 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶106

Mangali Shashirekha . W/o Mangali Janardan , Aged About 36^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶107

Mungi Sangram , S/o Thuljappa,

¶108

Aged About 43^years , Occ: Agriculture

¶109

Mathari Amurth , S/o Sammappa,

¶110

Aged About 63 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶111

Mungi Kamalamma , W/o RammapPa, Aged About 67 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶112

Mangalli Laxmamma, W/o Narsimlu,

¶113

Aged About 53^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶114

Bangaladoddi Ashamma , W/o Ramachandra, Aged About 59 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶115

Yerrola Suresh kumar, S/o Yerrola Chandraiah,

¶116

Aged About 38^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶117

Aligi Samuel , S/o Aligi Balaiah,

¶118

Aged About 52^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶119

Bagari Shamma , W/o Samappa,

¶120

Aged About 58^years, Occ: Agriculture

¶121

Aligi Mohan , S/o Pentaiah,

¶122

Aged About. 3-7 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶123

Nagaram Sham sundar, S/o Nagaram^Boinappa, Aged About 58 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶124

¶125

¶126

Jengili Chandranna, S/o Jengili Bechappa, Aged About 84 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶127

Siddi Narasamma , W/o Siddi Mannaiah, Aged About 53 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶128

Packet Pulhlibee, W/o packet Sadak ali, Aged About 58 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶129

Katkam Ravinder, S/o Katkam Venkatesham, Aged About 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶130

Bandollu Lakshmi, W/o Bandollu Manappa, Aged About 44 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶131

¶132

Bardipur Papaiah, S/o Bardipur Narsappa, Aged About 58 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶133

Petitioners No. 1to 88 are R/o Bardipur Village, Jarasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District , 502246

¶134

Raziya Begum , C/o Shaik Ghouse,

¶135

Aged About 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶136

Thalari Nagamma. W/o Thalari Balappa, Aged About 91 years , Occ: Agriculture

¶137

91.Fahim Unnisa Begum ,W /o Mohd Nisar Ahmed Aged About 47 yeas, Occ: Agriculture

¶138

Digdi D;rhu . S/o Digidi Narasppa,

¶139

Aged About 37 years , Occ: Agricuiture

¶140

Digdi Naresh Kumar, S/o Nara-sappa,

¶141

Aged About 36 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶142

¶143

Patlolla Mukund Rao,^{S/o Patlolla Chandrappa,}

¶144

Aged About 75^years, Occ:^Agriculture

¶145

Digdi Veershetty,' S/o^{DigidiNarasppa,}

¶146

Aged About 53^years, Occ:^Agriculture

¶147

Digdi Vittal, S/o Digidi^Narasppa,

¶148

Aged About 53^years, Occ:^Agriculture

¶149

Kammari Sangeetha,^{W/o Kammari[Vouneshwar,}

¶150

Aged About 47^years, Occ:^Agriculture

¶151

Petitioners No.89 to 97 are^{R/o Yelagoi Village,} Jarasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District ,⁵⁰²²⁴⁶

¶152

Matari Manaiah, S/o^{MatariTuljappa.}

¶153

Aged abot 48^years, Occ:^Agriculture

¶154

Errolla Samadana,^{W/oErrolla Mohan,}

¶155

Aged abot 44 years, Occ: Agiiculture

¶156

Petitioners No.98 & 99^{are R/o Bardipur Village,} Jarasangam Mandal, Sangireddy District,^5(J2246 .,..PETITIONERS AND

¶157

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its PrinciPal^Secretary, Revenue Department^{(LA & lA),} Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶158

The Chief Commissioner^{of Land Administration} And the Chairperson, State Level R&R Monitoring^Committee Nampally Station Road.^Hyderabad.

¶159

The Commissioner Rehabilitation And Resettlement Government of Telangana Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶160

¶161

¶162

10 4. TheDistrictCollector SangareddyDistrict Sanga reddy.
5. ThelointCollectorAndAdministrator RehabilitationAndResettlement Sangareddy.
6. The Revenue Divisional Officer ZaheerabadDivision Zaheerabad,SangareddyDistrict.
7. TheMandalTahsildar JharasangamMandal Sangareddy District.
B.TheTelanganaState industrial Corporation Limited(TSIIDC), Rep.byits V.C. &M.D. ParishramBhavan Basheerbagh.Hyderabad. Infrastructure

¶163

.RESPONDENTS

¶164

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A.Declaring the action of the Respondent Authoritiesⁱⁿ not paying fair and just compensation to the Petitioners on par with^{private patta} holders after forcibly acquiring the Petitioners assigned lands in^Sy.No.16in Bardipur&Sy.No.54,125,1O1 in Yelgoi villages,Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District, for public purpose, in Contravention of the^{procedurelaid down in the} Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitation} and Resettlement Act, (Act No.30 oI 2013), and as illegql, unconstitutional, null and void, and arbitrary, and,B. Declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in discriminating against the Petitioners assigned lands by not^paying them compensation on par with the^private Patta lands as discriminatory, arbitrary,

¶165

¶166

illegal, unconstitutional^{and violative of Articles 14, 19,21,and 300-A of the} Constitution of lndia,^{and C. Consequently directingthe Respondent authorities to} strictly follow the^{procedure laid down by law and alsounder Act No.30of 2013'} with respect to the^{assigned lands of the Petitioners acquiredby the Respondents} authorities for^{publicpurpose, and pay the Petitionersthe differential amount with} accrued interest on^{par with private Patta holdersin their respective villages.}

¶167

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶168

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent authorities^{to pay to the Petitionersthe differential amount} payable to the Petitioners with accrued interest on^{par with the privatepatta} holders, disposal of the main^WP.

¶169

Counsel for the Petitioners^{: SRI SANKALP PISSAY} Counsel for the Respondents^{No.1to7: GP FORLAND ACQUISITION} counsel for the Respondents^{No.8 : SRI L.PRABHAKARREDOY, SC FOR TSIIC} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶170

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINODKUMAR}

¶171

WRIT PET I-l'lON No.34477 of 2024

¶172

ORDEII:

¶173

Heard learned counsel for^{petitioners,learnedGovemment} Pleader for Land Acquisition^{appearing on behalfofrespondent} Nos. I to 7 and Sri L.Prabhakar^{Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel} appearing on behalf of^{respondentNo.S, and perusedthe record.} With the consent of leamed Counsel^{appearingfor the parties,} the Writ Petition is taken up for^{hearing and disposal at} admission stage.

¶174

Shom of unnecessary details,^{the case of the petitionersin} briefis that the respondent authorities^{have resumedthe landsfor} which they have been issued with assignment^{pattaswithout} paying ex-grafia amount equivalent to the^{c-ompensation amount} paid to the other private patta holders.

¶175

Petitioners further contend that the^{issue involved in the} present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of^this Court dated 26-ll-2024 passed in W.P.Nos.250l6^{and 28644 of} 2024, wherein this Court had held that^{the petitionerstherein}

¶176

¶177

¶178

who are also assignment patta holders and whose lands are resumed by the respondent authorities, are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount as paid to the land acquired from the pafta holders along with accrued interest aller deducting the amount of ex-gratia amount already received by the petitioners in the year 2016.

¶179

The aforesaid submission made is not disputed by the leamed Assistant Government pleader attached to the office of the leamed Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶180

In view of the same, since the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court, in order to maintain parity and for the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof.

¶181

6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shalt

¶182

stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶183

SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\ \ To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

I IIS tit:lp_ql 9gcietary, Re_venue Depjrrtment (LA and JA), Secretariat, State or tetangana, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶188

The chief commissioner_of Land Administration And the chairperson, State Level RandR Monitoring Committee rvampatty Staiion Rd;, Hfi;;;ij;j.^"*

¶189

S. Inp Commissioner, Rehabilitation And Resetilement Government of Telangana Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad.^-'-

¶190

The District Collector, Sangareddy District Sangareddy.

¶191

The Joint collector And Administrator, Rehabilitation And Resetflement Sangareddy.

¶192

The Rerrcnue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad Division Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.

¶193

¶194

j I
/

¶195

The Mandal Tahsildar,^{Jharasangam MandalSangareddy District'}

¶196

(

¶197

¶198

The V.C. and^{M.D, Telangana Statelndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation}

¶199

t-imiteO (TSllDC), irarishr-am Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad'

¶200

One CC to SRI SANKALP^{PISSAY' Advocate.} [OPUC]

¶201

10.Two CCs to GP^{FOR LANDACQUISITION, High CourtfortheStateof}

¶202

Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶203

1 1 . One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR^{REDDY, SC FORTSllC.} [OPUCI

¶204

12.Two CD CoPies.

¶205

(Along with a copy of the Order, dated 26-11'2024^{in W.P.Nos'25016& 28644} of 2024 to this Order)

}.BSK

B^b

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 6101t2O2S

(

ORDER

WP.No.344tT ot 2024

gE sTArg
'.J+ Cr1
I (
l 1
32 1 JN ?$6 :l
t
.:,,- -, ' .

¶215

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶216

l
0 ,{

¶217

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶218

W.P.Nos. 25016 a nd.28644 of 2o24

¶219

COMMON ORDER:

¶220

Since, the lis involved in these Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

¶221

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 to B in Wp.No.25O16 of 2024 and respondents No. 1 to 7 in W.p.No.28644 of 2024, and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.p.No.25016 of 2024 and for respondent No.g in W.p.No.2g644 of 2024, and perused the record.

¶222

Shorn of unnecessar5r details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were granted assignment pattas by the respondents-authorities as part of welfare measure; that the respondents_authorities claiming that

¶223

¶224

the said assigned lands are required for setting up of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) for public purposes, have resumed the aforesaid assignment pattas granted in their favour; that the authorities while resuming the aforesaid land had paid ex-gratia amount in a sum @ Rs.4,OO,OO0/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and (l Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of fallow lands; that the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- per acre in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders; and that the said action of the respondents-authorities 1S clearly discrimination and contrary to the law laid by this Court in Land. Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Cheuella Ditision, Egderabad and others as. Mekala Pandu and. othersr.

¶225

On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu's case (l supra) had held that even assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount at the same rate as

¶226

'^{zoor(z) aLr sao (r.s.)}

¶227

¶228

paid to the patta holders, ald that since, the respondentsauthorities have not paid the ex-gratia amount on par with the patta holders, the authorities are to be directed to pay the difference of amount to the petitioners in respect of the Iands resumed from them.

¶229

In support of the aforesaid contention, counsel for petitioners had also relied on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court dt.03.O1.2023 in W.A.No.677 of 2O22, and a recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dt.O6.O6.2O24 in W.P. Nos .25832 of 20 1 8 & 3 1482 of 2023.

¶230

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Ofhce of the learned Advocate Genera-l contends that the petitioners are assignment patta holders; that on the authorities initiating resumption proceedings, have participated in the said proceedings and agreed to receive the ex-gratia amount in a sum of Rs.4,OO,OOO/- per acre and Rs.3,25,OOO /- p.r acre in respect of lands under cultivation and fallow lands, respectively; and that the

¶231

rL.

¶232

¶233

petitioners have also received the amounts during the year 2016 itself.

¶234

It is further contended on behalf of the respondents .^{that as the decision of this Court in Mekala. pandub} case (1 supra) was holding the Iield even on the date when the resumption proceedings were initiated by the respondents, it is not open for the petitioners to contend of becoming aware of the decision now, after lapse of eight years, to approach this Court claiming pa5rment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders.

¶235

Learned Assistant Government pleader furttrer submits that since, the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of eight years, even if this Court were to hold the petitioners are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with private patta holders, they are not entitled for pa1rment of interest on the difference of amount payable to the petitioners.

¶236

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

This Court in a recent decision in W.p.Nos.25g32 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023, while rejecting the challenge to the resumption proceedings, however taking note of the decision of the larger. bench of this Court in MekaLa. Pandu's case (1 suprp.) held that the petitioners therein, who are assignment patta holders, are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with patta holders in their respective villages @ Rs.5,65,000/- per acre, and that the respondents-authorities have to pay the differential amount to the petitioners therein.

¶242

1 1. This Court in the aforesaid decision, apart from holding that the petitioners therein who are assignment, patta holders are entitled to receive ex_gratia on par with private patta holders of the respective villages, also directed the respondents to pay the differential amount with accrued interest by excluding the amount received by the petitioner in respect of their lands situated in their respective villages, which were procured/acquired for the pulpose of setting up of NIMZ, Zal:reerabad,, within a period

¶243

-:&

¶244

¶245

of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶246

Petitioners being assignment patta holders artd their lands, having been resumed by the respondentsauthorities in the yea:. 2016, which period of time is in close proximity to the period of 9th respondent requisitioning the lands for the purpose of setting up of NIMZ, would squarely be covered by the aforesaid decision.

¶247

As the fact of the respondents-authorities paying a sum of Rs.5,65,OOO f - per acre, irrespective of the nature of land, in respect of the lands acquired from the patta holders is not in dispute and a-lso the order of this Court, dt.O6.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2O18 & 31482 of 2023, having attained finality, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities cannot adopt a different yardstick while dealing with the case of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the respondents-authorities that the difference in rate fixed per acre is depending on the nature of land, is not brone out from the reading of the above

¶248

¶249

¶250

judgment and accordingly the contention in this regard is rejected.

¶251

14' Though on behalf of the respondents it is further contended that the petitioners having received the ex_gratia amount in the year 2016 are not entitled to lile the present writ petition after a delay of g years and on account of delay and latches the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief, it is to be noted that while acquiring the lands, a duty is cast on the respondents_authorities to pay the compensation/ex-gratia as per the law. since the decision of this Court in Mekala pandu\ case (1 supr4 was holding the field from the year 2OO4, the respondents_ authorities cannot plead igrrorance of the said decision while making payment of ex_gratia amount at a different rate from that of the amount paid to the patta holders.

¶252

The respondents_authorities having tailed to implement and enforce the law laid dovm by this Court, are precluded fro-m taking the plea of delay and latches in seeking to deny the pa5rment of ex-gratia amount to the

¶253

I )

¶254

¶255

petitioners on par with patta holders on the ground of delay and latches.

¶256

This Court in W.P.No.86O3 of 2024, dt.L9.tt.2o24, while rejecting a similar contention urged on behalf of respondents, had relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Vidga Deoi a. Th.e State of Himochal Prad.eshz, wherein it was observed as under:

¶257

"1O.7 The contention aduanced bg the State of delay and latches of tle Appellant in mouing th.e Court is also liable to be rejected. Delag and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if tle circum-stances sLack tlw judiciat consci.ence of the Court. Condonation of delag is a matter of judicial discretion, uhich mast be exercised judicioustg and. reasonablg in the facts and. circumstances of a case. It uill depend upon the breach of fundamental ights, and the remedg claimed, and ulhen and Lnut tle delag arose. Tl-ere is no period of limitation prescibed for ttrc courts to exercise their constihttional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

¶258

' lzozoy^{z scc ses}

¶259

¶260

Ttte State has submitted that tn 2OOg it lnd rruhated acqubition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land owner uiz. Shn Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction q.uen bg the High Court in C.W.P.No.1192 of 2OO4. The State initiated acqui.sition onlg ii the case where d.irections tuere issued bg th.e High Cgurt, and. not in tle case of other land owners whase land.s utere compukorilg taken ouer, for th.e so;.ne pufpose, and. at thc sam.e time. As a conseqftence, the present land. ou.tner has been diuen to moue the Court in their indiuidual cases for redressal."

¶261

Further, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.677 of 2022 (speaking through tle Hon,ble The Chief Justice, Sri ujjal Bhuganm as His Lord.ships then utas)took note of the decision of this Court in Special Deputy Collector and. Land. Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddg District a. B'Narayan sutamge examined the impact of the raw laid down by the larger bench of this Court in Mekala pandu\ case (l supra) with regard to the claim of compensation by assignees of Government land and held that assignees of

¶262

t zozzlsy err zoz 1o1 1rs1

government land are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits at par with the owners of the land even in cases .^{where the assigned lands were taken possessionof by the} State in accordance w'ith the terms of the grant and notwithstanding the fact that such said resumption is for public purposes. Hence, the legal position is that assignees of government land are entifled to compensation on par with patta-holders.

¶267

Thus, the petitioners herein, who are assignment patta holders, are also entitled to pa5rment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to patta-holders.

¶268

L9. Insofar as the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, as noted herein above, the Apex Court in Vidga Deui's case(2 supra) had considered the aspect of delay and latches holding that condonation of delay is the judicial discretion

.---.4

-=*

of the Court, more particularly, when it deals with depriving a citizen of his constitutional right.

¶273

20' Though on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kantqtaka Pouter Corpn. Ltd. through its chairmaa & Managing Director & Another v. K.Thangappan and Anotheta and S.S.Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Otherss in support of their contention that delay defeats equity, it is to be noted that the said decisions deal are in relation to service law and it does not relate to land acquisition matters.

¶274

On the other hand having regard to the law laid down by the Honble supreme Court in Vidga Dedb case(2 supra) on the aspect of delay and latches, when it comes to breach of fundamental rights and constitutional rights, which principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court again in Salch Dutt Ratrq & Another a. State of Himachat

¶275

o (zooe) + scc:zz

' 1zoos:, z scc tzs

Pradesh6 and the recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023, dt.O6.O6.2O24, the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the aspect of delay and latches, would not advance the case of the respondents.

¶280

In view of the discussion made as above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, whose assignment patta lands were resumed by the respondents-autlorities, are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to the land acquired from the patta holders along with accrued interest therein, after deducting the amount of ex-gratia amount already received by the petitioners in the year 2016.

¶281

Since, this Court has now held that the petitioners being eligible to receive the difference of ex-gratia amount along with accrued interest thereon, the respondents-

¶282

u 1zozz1^{z scc sos}

¶283

¶284

authorities are directed to make the aforesaid payment within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶285