Landowners are entitled to fair compensation regardless of reclassification, provided their ownership is established, emphasizing public benefit in land acquisition.

ORDER :

P.B.Balaji, J.

The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to disburse compensation amount along with interest, in respect of the land acquisition proceedings, which has been initiated against the petitioners in respect of S.No.182/2.

2.According to the petitioners, the lands were acquired and the award also came to be passed on 02.12.2014. It is the further case of the petitioners that despite production of title deeds as well as patta standing in the name of the petitioners, the authorities have not paid compensation for the lands acquired from the petitioners in S.No.182/2 and erroneously withheld the amount on the ground that the petitioners have not satisfied the authority about their title.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that physical possession has also not been taken from the petitioners. It is also the admitted case of the petitioners that in respect of other survey numbers and neighboring land owners, compensation has been disbursed and only in respect of S.No.182/2 the compensation has been withheld, on the ground of reclassification of the lands as 'Government tharisu lands'. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, ie., (i) Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Ors. , reported in (2001) 4 Scale 670 ; (ii) Mahavir & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2018 3 SCC 588 ; and Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123, in support of his contentions. In Mahavir & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2018 3 SCC 588 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the new enactment, namely, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 , was only to help the persons deprived of compensation and have been litigating for decades for quashing of proceedings initiated against them. In a more recent Judgment, in Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the purpose of acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said land is inconsequential to the purpose and if such a classification on the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where power holding members of the society may get away with a larger compensation, and the marginalized may get lesser compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held that the Act does not distinguish between classes of owners and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the lands have been classified as 'Government tharisu lands' and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to compensation.

5.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the fourth respondent has no objection for compensation being paid to the petitioners subject to the petitioners satisfying their claim of title to the subject lands.

6.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the averment made by the petitioners in the affidavit that possession still continues to be the petitioners is totally erroneous as the possessions had already been taken even in respect of S.No.182/2. Even the compensation was determined at Rs,4,10,480/- and was withheld only on the ground of classification of S.No.182/2 as 'Government assessed dry waste'.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8.On going through the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent as well as the fourth respondent, it is clear that the respondents admit the factum of purchase of lands in S.No.182/2 by the