When the State resumes assigned land for public purpose without validly cancelling the initial D-pattas or following due process of law, and fails to adduce evidence to prove the breach of grant conditions, the assignees are entitled to compensation on par with full title holders.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

1. This intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act , is filed by the State, challenging the order dated 21.08.2017 of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petition No.14209 of 2011, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to pay the compensation for the lands acquired, which are assigned to the writ petitioners.

2. Heard Ms. S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants-State and Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience, in this writ appeal.

4. Facts of the appeal germane to adjudicate the lis involved in this writ appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

In total there are eight writ petitioners, who have filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. According to them, all of them were assignees and as they are landless poor, the State Government has assigned the lands in question to them long back in the year 1970 and delivered possession of the said lands to them and granted D-pattas to all of them in respect of the lands that were assigned to them. Therefore, they have been in possession of the said lands assigned to them respectively since the year 1970. While so, the State Government has abruptly made an effort to dispossess them from the lands that were assigned to them, in the year 2006 on the ground that the lands that were assigned to them were resumed to the State on the pretext that they have violated the terms of the grant in not bringing the land under cultivation. Therefore, they have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and they sought the relief that is claimed in the writ petition.

5. The then District Collector of Visakhapatnam District, filed a detailed counter opposing the prayer of the writ petitioners. At the outset, it is significant to note that the material fact that lands were assigned to the writ petitioners was categorically and unequivocally admitted in the counter that was filed by the District Collector. However, it is pleaded that the ground verification report submitted by the Tahsildar revealed that the petitioners, who are the assignees of the lands, are not in possession of the lands as on the date of physical verification of the lands by the Tahsildar and that they did not bring the lands into cultivation and thereby violated the conditions of the assignment and as such, the lands were resumed to the Government, after giving show cause notice to the assignees. It is further pleaded by the District Collector that after the lands were resumed to the State Government that the ownership of the said lands was transferred to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘VUDA’).

6. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Estate Officer of VUDA also filed counter stating that the subject lands were subsequently transferred by the State Government to the VUDA and that the lands are now in their possession.

7. The Joint Director of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department also filed counter, asserting the same fact that the lands were subsequently transferred by the State Government to the VUDA.

8. It is also pleaded by the respondents in their counters that the proceedings issued to the other owners of the lands acquired by the State Government, allotting the land to them in an extent o