ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner herein, with the following prayer:

“………….to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioner, in spite of utilization of the petitioner's land of Ac. 2.21 guntas in Survey No. 158/15/1 of Kistaran Revenue Village in Sathupalli Mandal of Khammam District for the purpose of 5th respondent to dump waste sand of Sathupaly Open Cast, a illegal, irregular irrational, and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on them under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits payable for the said utilized land by invoking relevant statutory provisions of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and is the legal heir of late Panem Muthaiah, who was the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of assigned agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2.21 guntas in Survey No.158/15/1 and Ac.1.19 guntas in Survey No.158/15/2 situated at Kistaram Revenue Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. The said lands were assigned to the petitioner’s father in the year 1975 under a government scheme for distribution of land to landless poor persons and his name was duly reflected in the revenue records, pattadar passbook and title deed.

3. The petitioner further contends that the respondent authorities resumed the assigned lands admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas through proceedings dated 21.02.2004 and 31.01.2004 for the purpose of enabling the 5th respondent to utilize the land for dumping waste sand of Sathupally Open Cast-I and the possession was handed over in the year 2005. Though ex gratia compensation under G.O.Ms.No.1307 at the rate of Rs.72,000/- per acre along with 30% solatium was paid in respect of only Ac.1.31 guntas, the respondents failed to pay compensation for the remaining extent of Ac.2.21 guntas. Despite repeated representations made by the petitioner’s father during his lifetime and thereafter by the petitioner himself and approaching the Lokayukta, no compensation was paid.

4. The petitioner also contends that the respondents are under a legal obligation to pay compensation for the land utilized by them and that, as the legal successor to his deceased father, he is entitled to claim the same. The continued failure of the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the land taken over for public purpose is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of the provisions of land acquisition Act.

5. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tahera Khotoon and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and Others¹1 (2014) 13 SCC 613 wherein it was held that, before the High Court, the landowners were not only seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands, but were also entitled to claim rent/damages for the period commencing from the date of dispossession till the date of issuance of notification.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contends that the petitioner’s father, late Panem Muthaiah, was already paid ex-gratia compensation of Rs.1,66,140/- towards an extent of Ac.1.39 guntas in Sy.No.158/15/2 pursuant to proceedings dated 27.04.2005. It is submitted that the said amount comprised market value and solatium and that the original assignee had accepted the compensation without protest by executing consent in favour of the Government, agreeing to the market value fixed and undertaking not to