SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
E. Lalithamma S/o Venkateswarlu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15161 of 2020
Decided On : 26-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Srinath

Differential compensation treatment between pattadars and assignees in land acquisition is unconstitutional and illegal, mandating equal compensation rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300-A - Land Acquisition - Writ Petition challenging compensation rate - Writ Petitioner entitled to differential compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre as the Government's payment of Rs. 4.2 lakhs per acre was discriminatory compared to pattadars receiving Rs. 5.5 lakhs per acre - Previous rulings established that assignees are entitled to compensation equivalent to the market value of the land. (Paras 9, 10, 19, 20)

(B) Equal Treatment - The Government cannot negotiate reduced compensation for assignees compared to pattadars, as this violates established legal precedents. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Writ Petitioner, assigned land in 2005, was compensated at Rs. 4.2 lakhs per acre after the land was acquired for a solar power plant but claimed entitlement to Rs. 5.5 lakhs per acre as per G.O.Ms. No. 259 dated 21.06.2016. The Government resumed the land in 2015 without compensation, which was challenged in court.

Findings of Court:
The Writ Petition was allowed, mandating the Government to pay the differential compensation along with interest and costs. The court held that the Government's negotiation for reduced compensation was illegal and irrational.

Issues: Whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation compared to the pattadars, and the legality of the Government's negotiation for reduced payment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that assignees must receive compensation equivalent to the market value of the land, and differential treatment between assignees and pattadars is unconstitutional.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, with directions for payment of differential compensation and interest.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri A. Srinath, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under:

    “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or a writ, more specifically a writ in the nature of a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.2 lakhs per acre instead of Rs. 5.5 lakh per acre and refusing to pay the balance of Rs. 1.30 lakhs per acre as mandated under G.O.Ms. No. 259 dated 21.06.2016 in spite of the receipt of notice dated 09.08.2020 as illegal, unconscionable and violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as also the rulings of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 23148 of 2018 and also of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 4412 of 1985 and consequently direct payment of balance compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.3 lakhs per acre of the land acquired in respect of Acres 3.78 cents of the land of petitioner in survey no. 842/A1 of Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh and pass such other order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”

3. From the above prayer, it is clear that the Writ Petitioner was already paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,20,000/- per acre, whereas it is the claim of the Writ Petitioner that she ought to have been paid Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre as per her legal entitlement.

Facts as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner

4. The Writ Petitioner was assigned Ac. 3.76 cents in Sy. No. 842-A1 of Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh by the Government in the year 2005. This land was acquired by the Government for setting up of Ultra Mega Solar Power Plant by the Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Limited in the year 2015.

5. It is submitted that in the proposed acquisition, the name of the Writ Petitioner was not included in the year 2014, on the basis that the assigned lands came to be resumed by the Government vide Proceedings R.C. No. 131/2014 without paying any compensation. Accordingly, on or about 02.01.2015, possession of land was forcibly taken away by the Government by Proceedings dated 02.01.2015 bearing R.C.A. 131/2014 (Ex.P.3). Several assignees, including the Writ Petitioner herein were informed that their lands have been resumed for violation of conditions mentioned in the D-form Patta. According to the Government, this is the reason that justifies the Government to resume the land without paying any compensation. Several assignees approached this Court. This Writ Petitioner filed W.P. No. 21023 of 2015 questioning the Resumption Order dated 02.01.2015. The Government of Andhra Pradesh took “in principle” decision on 13.06.2017 to pay compensation to all the assignees, including the Writ Petitioner herein. Resumption Order was set aside by this Court by taking serious view of the matter and directed personal appearance of several Officers. It is also submitted that after accepting apologies from the Officials and also the undertaking given by the Government that they will pass Orders according to law and also pay the compensation to all the assignees, the said matters were closed.

6. By a Common Order dated 14.07.2017 in W.P. No. 16274 of 2017 and batch, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the batch of Writ Petitions. Following directions were also given by the Learned Single Judge:

    (a) the petitioners are directed to file petition/representation before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claiming compensation as referred in the letter dated 10.07.2017, for resuming the assigned land from petitioners within eight weeks from today.

    (b) the petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top