The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the resumed land based on the non-cancellation of the assignment patta before the resumption of the land and the petitioner's continued possession of the land.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… to pass an order or Writ of direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 26-04-2018 passed by the 4th respondent RDO Nandyal rejecting the claim of compensation of the petitioner without even resumption of the land of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconscionable, and violative of the petitioner’s rights enshrined in the Right to Fair Compensation, transparency and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 as also opposed to Article 300-A Constitution of India apart from being violative settled law of the land as reflected in the ratio laid down in 7 Judge Constitution Bench in “Mekala Pandu” case confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 04-08-2014 in Civil Appeal No.7904-7912 of 2012 and consequently direct payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of Ac.4.00 cents of land in survey no.675 in Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh as per G.O.Ms.No.259 which is the present legal position for payment of compensation to assignees and pass such other order or further orders …”

2. a) The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that petitioner was assigned land of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in survey No.675 of Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, in the year, 1999. Pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. In the year, 2015 petitioner’s land was resumed for setting up of Ultra Mega Solar Power Plant by the Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Limited.

b) Since compensation was not paid, petitioner and others filed W.P.No.25404 of 2015 and batch. The said batch were disposed of by a common order dated 14.07.2017. Learned Single Judge of the composite High Court directed the Revenue Authorities to pay the compensation based on the revenue records and further directed the petitioners to submit true or Xerox copies of the documents in the possession of the petitioners in respect of their claim for compensation. Pursuant to common order, dated 14.07.2017, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal (for short ‘RDO’), by order dated 04.12.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner and some others on the ground hat petitioner failed to produce evidence to prove that the land was brought under cultivation. Therefore, petitioner fled C.C.No.424 of 2018. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No. 25404 of 2015 and pendency of C.C.No.424 of 2018 and batch, the orders passed by RDO vide proceedings in Rc.B/7506/2015 dated 04.12.2017 were recalled.

c) Subsequently petitioner submitted copies of the pattadar passbook, title deed and DKT patta in the office of RDO, Nandyal. However, RDO, by proceedings in Rc.B.238/2018 in W.P.No.25404/2015 dated 26.04.2018 again rejected claim of the petitioner. Inspite of repeated visits of the petitioner to the office of RDO, petition is not paid compensation. Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, the present writ petition is filed.

3. a) Counter was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is contended, interalia, that land acquisition proceedings have been initiated before acquiring the patta lands and compensation has also been paid to the pattadars and eligible assignees, who are in cultivation of the assigned lands. In respect of petitioner’s land, as per revenue records, land was not brought under cultivation as per the conditions of D-form patta. Hence, petitioner was not paid compensation and the same informed to her by proceedings, dated 26.04.2018. Though petitioner was given opportunity, petitioner failed to produce record of evidence to show that petitioner was in cultivation of the land.

b) As per RSR of the village, land of an extent of Ac.5-38 cents in survey No.675 of Gani village is recorded as assessed waste land and as per D-for