Fraud in obtaining consent and discrimination in compensation led the court to uphold the order for fair compensation to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

(B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.)

1. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by a learned Single Judge in WP.No.6652 of 2015 dated 02.06.2021 whereby the writ petition was allowed directing the official respondents to pay the writ petitioners compensation at Rs.27,00,000/- per acre with 30% solatium and interest at 8% per annum.

2. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

3. WP.No.6652 of 2015 was filed aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent No.3 bearing No.D/727/2008 dated 08.01.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation.

4. The petitioners are agriculturists, who were assigned lands under pattas dated 21.02.1993 in Sy.No.88 of Raviryal Village. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) has given requisition for acquiring an extent of Ac.108.27 guntas of land in Raviryal village for extension of Hardware Park. In such acquisition, the assigned lands of the petitioners were included and ordered to be resumed. The lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.88 were resumed under proceedings dated 18.03.2006 and assignments were cancelled. The grievance of the petitioners was that actual extent of land was not taken into consideration and ex gratia/compensation was granted for lesser extent of land, as per proceedings dated 07.08.2009. It is stated that though the total extent of assigned lands was Ac.49.07 guntas, the compensation was awarded only for an extent of Ac.37.05 guntas. The ex gratia amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was awarded to the petitioners No.1 to 34, Rs.7,05,000/-was awarded to petitioner No.35 and Rs.7,50,000/- was awarded to petitioner No.36.

5. WP.No.17083 of 2012 was filed challenging the proceedings dated 07.08.2009 on the ground that ex gratia amount paid was below the market value, the extents of land recorded in the revenue records, pattedar passbooks, title deeds and patta certificates were not taken into account. The compensation amount paid is contrary to the judgment of this Court in LAO-cum-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHEVELLA DIVISION v. MEKALA PANDU [2004 (2) ALT 546 (LB)] and that the petitioners should have been paid compensation as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 (Assign.I) Department dated 23.12.1993 i.e. the market value as on the date of resumption plus 30% solatium and also considering the value of trees and wells. The Tahsildar, Maheswaram Mandal, insisted that the petitioners should accept ex gratia amount fixed by them at the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre. The writ petition was filed as inadequate compensation was paid to the petitioners.

6. In the counter filed in WP.No.17083 of 2012 by the Special Deputy Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, it was stated that as per the survey conducted by them, the total extent of assigned land is Ac.38.19 guntas but as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Maheshwaram Mandal, the assignees were said to be in possession of Ac.52.38 guntas of land. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records vide proceedings dated 17.02.2009 reported that SDR records prepared by the Mandal Surveyor does not tally with the ground and the total area as per demarcation was found to be Ac.38.19 guntas only. The assignments were canceled on 18.03.2006 for resumption as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. The market value of the land was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, which was not accepted, whereupon after negotiations, rate of Rs.6,00,000/- was agreed to . In the Grama Sabha held on 11.06.2009, all the assignees except two persons have requested to pay as a package amount of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre equally among all the petitioners instead of the extents individually held by them. The two petitioners, namely, Gonemoni Jangamma and Boda Sulochana, requested to pay the ex gratia as per the extent held by them.

7. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners in WP.No.17083 of 2012 contending that the compensation paid was not just and proper and the allegation that the package amount was agreed to