The State must comply with the law declared by the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court and cannot deny legitimate compensation claims on the ground of delay and laches.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Ms. P. Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellants and Mr. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Lokirev Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 27. We have also heard Ms. Keerti Kabra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation representing respondents No.28 and 29.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.10426 of 2016 filed by respondents No.1 to 27 as the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.1 to 27 had filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to the official respondents (appellants herein) to pay compensation for acquisition of their assigned lands at par with patta-holders as determined vide the award dated 17.07.1998 passed by the Special Deputy Collector in Award No.10/98-99 as enhanced vide the order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.991 of 2000 and further enhanced by this Court in L.A.A.S.No.1030 of 2007 vide the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008.

4. From the materials on record, it is seen that respondents No.1 to 27 were assigned government land. But their assigned lands were resumed by the government for the purpose of submergence under Udaya Samudram Tank, Panagal Village, Nalgonda District, vide notification dated 30.01.1998. Following land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaration was made on 02.02.1998. Ultimately, award was passed by the Special Deputy Collector on 17.07.1998 vide Award No.10/98-99 awarding Rs.31,500.00 per acre to the patta-holders. Insofar assignees like respondents No.1 to 27 were concerned, they were paid lump sum ex gratia amount for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.31,500.00 per acre plus solatium.

4.1. Patta-holders had approached the civil Court i.e., Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.991 of 2000 for enhancement of compensation. By the order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge the compensation was enhanced from Rs.31,500.00 to Rs.47,250.00 per acre.

4.2. The patta-holders thereafter approached this Court in L.A.A.S.No.1030 of 2007 for further enhancement of compensation. By the order dated 12.08.2008, this Court was pleased to enhance the compensation to Rs.1,10,000.00 per acre.

4.3. Respondents No.1 to 27 submitted a representation dated 01.03.2011 addressed to the appellants for enhancing their compensation at par with the patta-holders. This was followed by subsequent representations dated 24.08.2011 and 28.11.2015. Since no steps were taken by the official respondents (appellants herein) the related writ petition came to be filed.

4.4. Appellants had filed counter affidavit opposing the prayer made by respondents No.1 to 27. Amongst other objections raised, it was contended that writ petitioners had not filed any application for enhancement. That apart, the writ petition was filed about eleven years after the award was passed. Therefore, the writ petition was hit by delay and laches.

4.5. Before the learned Single Judge it was argued by learned Government Pleader that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the writ petitioners did not approach the authorities seeking enhancement of compensation within the time stipulated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

4.6. Learned Single Judge referred to a Larger Bench decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu, 2004 (2) ALT 546 (LB) and held that an assignee whose land is acquired by the State stands on the same footing as that of a patta-holder whose land has been acquired by the State. Denial of equal compensation to the assignees would be discriminatory. On facts, it was held that there was no delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner