Assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia payments at the same rates as private patta holders, regardless of delays in claims.

ORDER :

1. Since, the lis involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 8 in WP.No.25016 of 2024 and respondents No.1 to 7 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.25016 of 2024 and for respondent No.8 in W.P.No.28644 of 2024, and perused the record.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were granted assignment pattas by the respondents-authorities as part of welfare measure; that the respondents-authorities claiming that the said assigned lands are required for setting up of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) for public purposes, have resumed the aforesaid assignment pattas granted in their favour; that the authorities while resuming the aforesaid land had paid ex-gratia amount in a sum @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and @ Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of fallow lands; that the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- per acre in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders; and that the said action of the respondents-authorities is clearly discrimination and contrary to the law laid by this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O. Chevella Division, Hyderabad and others vs. Mekala Pandu and others , 2004 (2) ALT 546 (LB).

4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (1 supra) had held that even assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount at the same rate as paid to the patta holders, and that since, the respondents- authorities have not paid the ex-gratia amount on par with the patta holders, the authorities are to be directed to pay the difference of amount to the petitioners in respect of the lands resumed from them.

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, counsel for petitioners had also relied on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court dt.03.01.2023 in W.A.No.677 of 2022, and a recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General contends that the petitioners are assignment patta holders; that on the authorities initiating resumption proceedings, have participated in the said proceedings and agreed to receive the ex-gratia amount in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and fallow lands, respectively; and that the petitioners have also received the amounts during the year 2016 itself.

7. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that as the decision of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case (1 supra) was holding the field even on the date when the resumption proceedings were initiated by the respondents, it is not open for the petitioners to contend of becoming aware of the decision now, after lapse of eight years, to approach this Court claiming payment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of eight years, even if this Court were to hold the petitioner