HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2019 & WRIT APPEAL NO. 246 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

These two Writ Appeals came to be filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent, assailing the common order dated 18.07.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.522 and 1469 of 2018 by a learned single Judge of the combined High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents herein, with a direction to the appellants herein to pay compensation payable to the writ petitioners as on the respective dates of their resumption, with all other benefits as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within four (04) months, by giving opportunity to submit material in support of the market value at the time of such resumption.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these Writ Appeals, are as under:-

The assigned lands of the respondents in both the writ petitions, have been resumed by the Government for the purpose of Somasila Project on 15-10-1985 and 20-04-1985 respectively. But, no compensation has been paid based on

1

market value of their lands, along with other benefits, as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalguda, Hyderabad and others Vs.Mekala Pandu and others¹, which was confirmed by the Apex Court by order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal No.7904-7912 of 2012. Aggrieved thereby the writ petitions filed the above writ petitions seeking a direction to the authorities to pay compensation for the lands acquired along with trees and wells situated therein in terms of larger bench judgment passed in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Domalguda Vs. Mekala Pandu and others reported in $2004(2)$ ALD 451 and as affirmed by Apex Court vide order dated 04-08-2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012.

$3.$ A counter came to be filed by the authorities admitting that the writ petitioners are assignees and that their lands were resumed on 15-10-1985 and 20-04-1985 for Somasila Project. However, it is urged that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation as per the decision in Mekala Pandu (1 supra), since the lands were resumed prior to the said order and that the Writ Petitions seeking compensation is filed with an inordinate delay of nearly 30 years after resumption of the lands. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

$1.2004(2)$ ALD 451 (LB)

4. By a common order under challenge, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to pay compensation payable to the writ petitions as stated above.

5. The respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petitions, preferred these two appeals.

6. In both the Writ Petitions, the writ petitioners questioned resumption of their lands for the purpose of Somasila Project on 15.10.1985 and 24.10.1985. The fact that the subject lands were assigned to the writ petitioners and they were resumed subsequently, is not in dispute.

7. The points that would emerge for determination in these appeals are:

• 1. Whether the delay of 30 years on the part of the writ petitions in approaching the Court from the date of resumption of the lands is justifiable?
• 2. Whether the case of the writ petitioners is covered by judgment of the Apex Court vide order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal No.7904-7912 of 2012?
• 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for realisation of the award passed by the learned Single Judge?

8. In so far as the delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that having regard to the fact that the writ petitioners approached this Court, 30 years after resumption of lands, the same should have been rejected.

9. In the instant case, though the writ petitioners' lands were resumed on 15.10.1985 and 20.04.1985, no compensation is paid. The petitioners have been agitating for the said relief, as is evident from the various proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector to Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project; Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopavaram to Special Deputy Collector, Somasila Project and Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project to Special Collector, Somasila Project, ranging from 1996 to 2005. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners have been making attempts to get compensation from the authorities.

10. In Tukaram Kana Joshi and others Vs. M.I.D.C. and others2, the Apex Court dealt with an issue, wherein the land was notified for acquisition on 06.06.1994 for establishment of a Project and the Writ Petition came to be filed in the year 2009 i.e. after 15 years. The Court held that petition is not hit by doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, since the cause of action is continuous. More so, no period of limitation is prescribed for the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of certain length of time. The Apex Court held that in the event the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned; where the circumstances justifying the

2 . 2013(2)ALD 7 (SC)

4

conduct exist and the illegality, which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. It further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the case of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay. Therefore, held that the delay, as urged by learned counsel for the appellants, cannot be a ground to reject their request.

11. Coming to the facts of the present case, the DKT patta lands were sought to be acquired for public purpose i.e., the land sub-mergeable under Somasila Project. The concerned D.K.T.pattadars were issued notices to show cause as to why the lands assigned to them should not be resumed to Government for the purpose of Somasila Project submersion. They were given 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice to offer their explanation. The notices were either served on the assignees or their family members or were affixed to the poles planted in the DKT patta lands. Explanations came to the submitted by the assignees stating that they have spent huge amounts for reclamation and improvement of the lands and that they have also constructed irrigation wells and filter points apart from raising fruit trees. Being not satisfied with the explanations offered by the assignees, the Special Deputy Collector, by virtue of the powers conferred as per G.O.Ms.No.180, Revenue (B)

5

Department, dated 09.02.1984 ordered resumption of the lands to government, subject to payment of compensation on par with similar lands in the vicinity. As no compensation is paid in terms of the ratio laid down in Mekala Pandu's case, the petitioners have been pursuing the same. Hence, it can be said that there was no substantial delay in filing the writ petitions.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since the lands resumed were assigned lands, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would contend that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the parameters of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7904-7912 of 2012.

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:

^&lt;sup>3</sup> AIR 2004 AP, 250

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.

110. The aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7904 and batch on 04.08.2014. We see no grounds to defer with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. Viewed from any angle, we feel that the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference.

111. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed confirming the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.522 & 1469 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,ACJ

______________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

Dt. 17-09-2019 RRR

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT APPEAL NOS.244 & 246 of 2019

Dt.17-09-2019

RRR