ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Smt. V. Padmaja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

2. The Writ Petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 4 and the father of the Writ Petitioner No.3 are the original assignees of the lands situated at Gudavolu Village, Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The lands were assigned by the Tahsildar of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.453/2 in favour of Writ Petitioner No.1 vide F.Dis.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978; Ac.0.46 cents in Sy.No.450/1 and Ac.1.29 cents in Sy.No.449/4 in favour of Writ Petitioner No.2 vide D.Dis,.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978; Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.451/1 in favour of father of the Writ Petitioner No.3 vide F.Dis.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978; and, Ac.1.44 cents in Sy.No.447/2B2 in favour of Writ Petitioner No.4 vide F.Dis,.No.49/DAR/87 dated 26.04.1978.

3. It is submitted by Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the above lands were sought to be acquired by the Official Respondents, as the same would be submerged under Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project. In that process, the Respondent No.2 has acquired Patta lands and passed Award No.6 & 9/TGP/91 dated 09.03.1991 under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. The Genuineness Certificate for the CJSF/DKT holder that was issued by the Tahsildar, Rapur vide Lr.No.597/07 dated 23.10.2009, was submitted before the Respondent No.2. However, on the ground that the land of the Writ Petitioners is a non-saleable land as it was subject to the condition of in- alienability, the Competent Authority paid only exgratia but not the just compensation. The stand of the Official Respondents, as reiterated in the Counter Affidavit, is also that they have paid exgratia and that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for just compensation because the land is an assigned land and it cannot be subject to any sale.

5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has cited a Judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Court (Coram of Hon’ble Seven Judges) and submitted that the stand of the Official Respondents that the Writ Petitioners are only entitled to exgratia in the event of acquisition of the assigned land and that the assignees are not entitled for the just compensation, is no more res integra in view of the said Judgment in Land Acquisition Officer–cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others (2004 (2) ALT 546 (L.B.)).

6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners referred to Para Nos.110 & 111 of the above mentioned Judgment, which are usefully reproduced hereunder:-

< 110. In the result, we hold that >no compensation? clause, restricting the right of the assignees to claim full compensation in respect of the land resumed equivalent to the market value of the land, is unconstitutional. The >no compensation clause? infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31-A of the Constitution. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21 springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed there under. The doctrine of >unconstitutional conditions? applies in all its force.

111. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shal