AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25-3-2002 directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for referring the issue relating to payment of compensation to the assignees of government lands in the light of the Larger bench decision reported in State of A. P. v. Bondapalli Sanyasi and the Full Bench decision reported in State of A. P. v. P. Peda chinnayya so that the controversy in this regard could be put to rest.

( 2 ) A Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in P. Peda Chinnayya s case held as follows: where the Government resorts to the provisions of the Act for acquisition of the patta lands without resorting to the terms of the grant for resumption, it is liable to pay compensation under the act, but such compensation will be only the market value of the interest of the owner or the assignee of the land, subject to the clog. In such cases. of acquisition, the claimant would also be entitled to consequential reliefs, such as those of solatium and interest, etc. , under the Act. In a case where the patta lands are resumed by the Government, the assignees cannot claim compensation under the Act, but can claim compensation equal to the market value of their interest in the land, subject to the clog. In such cases, no solatium may be payable but interest may be claimed on the amount of compensation from the date of dispossession and till the date of payment of compensation. In a case where the assignees are dispossessed from their patta lands without resuming the lands in terms of the grant and/or initiation of proceedings under the Act, the Government may be directed to initiate proceedings under the Act and to pay compensation under the Act as indicated.

( 3 ) THE view expressed by the Full Bench was not accepted by the Larger Bench in the case reported in Bondapalli Sanyasi. The larger Bench held that the decision of the full Bench in P. Peda Chinnayya (supra), holding that assignee can claim compensation equal to market value of his interest in the land with interest thereon from the date of dispossession even if the government resumes assigned land by resorting to terms of grant, is not good law. S. B. Sinha C. J. , Bilal Nazki, J. and Goda raghuram, J. concurred and overruled the decision of the Full Bench in P. Peda chinnayya (supra ). On the other hand, motilal B. Naik, J. , took a different view which was accepted by B. Sudershan reddy, J. B. Sudershan Reddy, J. stated that he agreed with the conclusions reached in the judgment prepared by Motilal B. Naik, J. and accordingly dismissed C. M. P. No. 19044 of 2001 and consequently C. M. P. SR. No. 70327 of 2001 also stood dismissed. He also stated that the correctness of the law laid down by the Full Bench in P. Peda chinnayya (supra) need not be gone into for the present. He directed the appeal in a. S. No. 1266 of 1987 arising out of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 49 of 1984 be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

( 4 ) IN view of the majority opinion, CM. P. SR. Nos. 70327 and 70329 of 2001 and C. M. P. No. 19044 of 2001 in A. S. No. 2541 of 1986, were dismissed and consequently A. S. No. 697 of 1985 was dismissed and A. S. No. 1266 of 1987 was remitted to the learned single Judge for consideration of the same in the light of the majority opinion.

( 5 ) MOTILAL B. Naik, J. sitting with g. Rohini, J. while dealing with Writ Appeal no. 170 of 2002, opined thus: though the assignees are entitled to get benefits on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision cited (supra), in view of the later decision of the Larger Bench of this Court cited (supra), such benefit is denied to them in spite of the fact that the Larger Bench in the decision (supra) has not examined the correctness of the view of the Full bench decision cited (supra) in correct perspective having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document