APHC010024152018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 164/2018 Between: The Special Collector(la) and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Bnadi Suseelammadied and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The Government had acquired large extents of land in Penubarthi Village, Rapur Mandal of Nellore District, for foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project. As part of this acquisition, an extent of Ac.5.54 cents of land in Sy.No.340/1B2 of Penubarthi Village was taken over. The 1st respondent had approached the erstwhile High Court of 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.27046 of 2006, contending that the land belongs to her and was taken over from her without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the “1894 Act”) and without payment of compensation. The 1st respondent also contended that payment of exgratia amount is not permissible in as much as a larger Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Mekala Pandu1, had held that assignees of land are also entitled for payment of compensation by applying the principles of the 1894 Act. 2. The claim of the 1st respondent was challenged by the State, on the ground that the said land was originally assigned to one Smt. A. Kanakamma, in the year 1971, and the claim of the 1st respondent is based on an alleged unregistered sale deed, dated 19.11.1958. It was contended that the said sale deed is an unregistered document, which cannot be looked into and in any event, the land could not have been alienated to the father-in-law of the 1st respondent, in as much as, the land was assigned land and alienation is barred under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (here-in-after referred to as the “1977 Act”). The State also contended that the 1st respondent was not entitled 1 AIR 2004 AP 250 = 2004 (2) ALD 451= 2004 (2) ALT 546 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 to any payment and it was only the legal heirs of Smt. A. Kanakamma, who would be entitled to the said compensation, if any. 3. A Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, by a Judgment, dated 25.10.2017, had allowed the Writ Petition. The Learned Judge, after refering to a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 15.07.2005, had held that the 1st respondent would be entitled to compensation, as computed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (here-in-after referred to as “2013 Act”). It may also be noted that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the 1st respondent had passed away and the 2nd respondent, who is the son of the 1st respondent, was brought on record as his legal representative, by way of an order, dated 29.09.2015, in W.P.M.P.No.31046 of 2015. 4. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the State is in Appeal before this Court. 5. Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue contends that a proforma abstract had been prepared in the year 1998 and was submitted by 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rapur, to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, under a covering letter, dated 06.05.1998. In this proforma, it was recorded that assignment of land, in favor of Smt. A. Kanakamma, was done by way of assignment deed, dated 03.01.1971. He would contend that, in such circumstances, the question of alienation of the land in favor of any other person, would not arise. He would also contend even if such alienation is permissible, the father-in-law of the 1st respondent would not get any title in as much as the deed of alienation is said to be an unregistered document. 7. Though the proforma relied upon by the appellant/State was prepared on 06.05.1998, showing that the land in question was assigned to Smt. A. Kanakamma, in the year 1971, there was a subsequent report, dated 15.07.2005, submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rapur, to the Special District Collector, Telugu Ganga Project. In this report, the Mandal Revenue Officer, states that after due enquiry, it has come to light that a Government patta was issued in favor of Smt. A. Kanakamma in the year 1923, in respect of land in Sy.No.340/1B2, for an extent of Ac.5.54 cents. It was further stated that the name of Smt. A. Kanakamma was included in the 10(1) account of the Village by recording her patta as patta No.115. The Mandal Revenue Officer further stated that though Smt. A. Kanakamma and her son would become the enjoyers of the land, they had sold away the land to Sri Bandi Rama Krishna Reddy, in the year 1958, for Rs.300/-, by way of agreement of sale on a white paper. After the demise of Sri Bandi Rama Krishna Reddy, the land is said to 5 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 have devolved on the 1st respondent, as it was given to her, by way of pasupukumkuma. 8. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after setting out these facts, had recommended payment of compensation to the 1st respondent. 9. The Learned Single Judge relied upon this report, to hold that the 1st respondent was entitled for payment of compensation. The said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer has not been refuted in any manner by the State. In the absence of the said report being refuted, the earlier record brought by the Mandal Revenue Officer, cannot be accepted. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industrjies (P) Ld. Tr. Dir. Vs. State of Haryana & Another2, had held that an unregistered agreement of sale or even a registered agreement of sale, would not transfer title to the purchaser and such title can be transferred only on the basis of a registered document. In the present case, there is no registered document available. In the normal course, the claim of the 1st respondent, which was based on an unregistered agreement of sale, would not be looked into. However, the fact remains that the Revenue Department itself had accepted the title of the 1st respondent, by issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds which were in vogue, for quite a few years before 2 AIR 2012 SC 206 6 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 the land was taken over. In such circumstances, the claim of the 1st respondent cannot be negatived. 11. A further question of the impact of the provisions of the 1977 Act remains. It is now settled law that the condition of non-alienation, in any assignment which was issued under the Andhra region of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, was introduced in 1954 and consequently, the assignments of land, made prior to 1954, were without any condition of non- alienation and such land can be alienated. In view of the clear report of the Mandal Revenue Officer that the assignment of the land was made in 1923, the provisions of 1977 Act would not be applicable. 12. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2006, when the provisions of the 1894 Act were applicable and the Learned Single Judge had committed error in directing payment of compensation in terms of the 2013 Act. 13. Though the land had been taken over in the year 2006, the fact remains that the 1st respondent has been paid only exgratia and compensation has not been paid to her. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the provisions of the 2013 Act are applied for computing the compensation payable to the 1st respondent and consequently, to the 2nd respondent. 7 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 14. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, affirming the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.No.27046 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 01.04.2025 MJA 8 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.164 of 2018 164 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 164 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 01.04.2025 MJA