APHC010057842020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3520/2020 Between: Boya Aswarthappa and others The State of Andhra Pradesh and Counsel for the Petitioner 1. G.Rajkumar Counsel for the Respondent 1. GP for Revenue (AP) 2. Rama Chandra Rao Gurram The Court made the following The writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. and others 1 (Larger Bench (Assessment-I) Department dated 21 2. Heard Sri G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent 1 2004 (2) ALD 451 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3520/2020 thers ...Petitioners AND f Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: Rama Chandra Rao Gurram following order: petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu Bench) and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue Department dated 21.06.2016. G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Petitioners Respondents petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay Land Acquisition Mekala Pandu 259 Revenue G.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent 2 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 15 petitioners have received ex-gratia payment in the year 2008, which they have accepted at the relevant time. However, despite the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra), which was holding the field, the respondents have not followed the said decision in awarding the compensation. 4. It is contended that the Larger Bench in Mekala Pandu’s case has held that compensation for acquisition of assigned lands should be on par with the compensation paid for patta lands. Therefore, contends that the petitioners should not be denied the benefit of judgment of this court. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 argues that the land was acquired in 2008, and ex-gratia payment was made, which the petitioners have accepted. After lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assessment-I) Department, dated 21.06.2016, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 6. Learned counsel, referring to the provisions of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, contended that the proceedings under the old Act would 3 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 not lapse, as the possession of the land had been taken and compensation was awarded and the same has been paid. The petitioners, having received ex-gratia payment after the acquisition, cannot now seek enhanced compensation under the new Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagan Singh2 held that: “17. The High Court has issued a direction to pay compensation to the first respondent in terms of the 2013 Act. The said direction was issued in the context of the fact that the Court was declaring the acquisition as lapsed notwithstanding the fact that the acquired land was already used for an important public purpose. Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not applicable to the acquisition. However, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation already determined under the award made under the 1894 Act.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners had sought payment of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.259, Revenue (Assessment-I) Department, dated 21.06.2016 and made a representation on 30.07.2019, but no orders have been passed on the said representation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.244 and 246 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench held that: 2 2023 SCC Online SC 833 4 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 “13. A perusal of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu and others3, more particularly, para 109, would go to show that even in case where the lands assigned were resumed, the assignees of the government lands are entitled to compensation, equivalent to the market value of the land. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as under: 109. 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 the 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, 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.” 8. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.44459 of 2017, by a learned Single Judge, wherein the respondents were directed to 5 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 consider the claims of the petitioners therein for payment of compensation in terms of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and others etc., v. Mekala Pandu and others (supra). 9. Considered the rival submissions, In the light of decision of Larger Bench in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra), there was no justification for the respondents in not following the said decision while awarding compensation to the petitioners in 2008. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners be granted liberty to file a detailed representation before the Land Acquisition Officer/appropriate authority, seeking compensation on par with patta holders, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On such the application being made by the petitioners, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the principles laid down in larger bench decision of this Court, in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra). The respondents are directed to dispose of the representation within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. While disposing of the representation, the respondents shall bear in mind the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra). This direction is issued having regard to the provisions of Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 6 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 07.01.2025 BSK 7 KM,J W.P.No.3520 of 2020 129 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3520/2020 Date: 07.01.2025 BSK