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
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:
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:
(b) the petitio
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Enderby Town Football Club Ltd. v. Football Assn. Ltd. (1971) Ch 591
Differential compensation treatment between pattadars and assignees in land acquisition is unconstitutional and illegal, mandating equal compensation rights.
Point of law: Restriction should be imposed only to protect ownership rights of assignee.
Assignees of Government lands are entitled to compensation equal to that of patta lands when acquired, as statutory rights under the Land Acquisition Act override any ex-gratia payments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'no compensation' clause restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation is unconstitutional and infringes the fundament....
Assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia payments at the same rates as private patta holders, regardless of delays in claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.