Physical possession of land captured after the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, mandates that compensation must be calculated according to the 2013 Act, rendering prior lapse of proceedings irrelevant to the duty to provide fair recompense.

ORDER:

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

"….to pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the Memo issued by the respondent no.4 vide Rc.No.A/858/2013 dated 30.04.2018 and the consequential letter issued by the respondent no.3 vide Rc.No.C2/3502/2014 dated 31.05.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio and violative of the Memo issued by the respondent no.1 vide No.18205/LA/2016, Rev.(JA & LA) Department, dated 19.08.2017, Memo No.10804/LA/2018 dated 09.05.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.50, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, dated 19.12.2014, and as violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and further to direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider the payment of just compensation to the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013') and G.O.Ms.No.50, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, dated 19.12.2014, and as per the Memo issued by the respondent No.1 vide No.18205/LA/2016, Revenue (JA & LA) Department, dated 19.08.2017 and Memo No.10804/LA/2018 dated 09.05.2018; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice .”

The petitioners contend that they are assignees of agricultural lands situated in Sy.No.72 of Naspur Village, Mancherial Mandal and District, belonging to economically weaker sections and dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. The said lands, along with other assigned lands admeasuring about Ac.130.00 guntas, were resumed by the Government at the request of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for establishment of a Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) site for Project Displaced Families of Guttedarpally and Singapur villages. According to the petitioners, although the respondents sought to show that the lands were resumed on 29.11.2013, the actual possession of the lands was taken from them only on 27.08.2014 under a panchanama and thereafter handed over to SCCL on 30.08.2014 through a charge certificate. Since the physical possession of the lands was admittedly taken after 01.01.2014, i.e., after the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred as the Act, 2013), the petitioners assert that their case is governed by the provisions of the said enactment and not by the earlier policy or executive instructions relating to ex gratia payments.

The petitioners further contend that notwithstanding the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the respondents granted them only an ex gratia amount of Rs.3,90,000/- per acre through proceedings dated 22.06.2015 under G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. It is their specific case that such compensation is grossly inadequate, arbitrary and wholly disproportionate to the prevailing market value of the lands acquired. They allege that the respondents deliberately recorded the date of resumption as 29.11.2013 in order to deny them the statutory benefits available under the Act, 2013. The petitioners submit that even under G.O.Ms.No.1307, assignees are entitled to compensation equivalent to that payable to pattadars on the basis of market value, but the authorities failed to follow the prescribed guidelines and paid only a meagre amount. Having received the compensation under protest, the petitioners made several representations to the Government seeking reassessment and payment of fair compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

The petitioners state that upon consideration of their representations, the Government issued Memo No.18205/LA/2016 dated 19.08.2017, wherein it was observed that although the acquisition proposals had been initi