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

               “… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for their lands situated in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, taken over for the purpose of formation of a Vocational Training Centre and Coal Dumping Yard by Singareni Collieries Company Limited, and, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...”

2. Heard Sri R.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Katta Radha Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 9 to 11, and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Perused the material on record.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The petitioners state that they are poor agriculturists belonging to the Koya Scheduled Tribe community and that the agricultural lands in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District (now Bhadradri Kothagudem District), were assigned to them, or to their predecessors-in-title, by the Government, and that they have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.

4. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Manuguru (for short, ‘SCCL’), made a requisition by letter No.EM/LA/MNG/25/1025, dated 24.08.1983, addressed to the Tahsildar, Manuguru, for an extent of Ac.44-16 guntas in Sy.No.341, for the purpose of establishing a Vocational Training Centre and a Coal Dumping Yard. Pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector, Khammam, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Manuguru, handed over possession of an extent of Ac.42-06 guntas to SCCL under a panchanama dated 30.05.1993, excluding an extent of Ac.2-10 guntas upon which a church stood.

5. Discrepancies were thereafter noticed in the Sub-Division Record in respect of the names entered against the subject lands. The petitioners approached the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, and the fourth respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manuguru, for correction of that record. The correction proceedings initiated in the year 2002 were contested by third parties, whereupon the petitioners instituted civil suits before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, which came to be decreed in their favour. No suit was required to be filed by petitioner Nos.6, 7 and 9, there being no contest to their title, and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Nos.16 and 17 had separately approached the Revenue Divisional Officer.

6. In the year 1995, W.P.No.20602 of 1995 was filed before this Court by the predecessors-in-title of some of the petitioners, seeking compensation for the lands taken over. That writ petition was disposed of on 25.10.1997, directing the petitioners therein to approach the District Collector, Khammam, for payment of compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. Consequent upon G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 30.11.2004, read with G.O.Ms.No.1307, the petitioners filed representations before the Joint Collector, Khammam, in the year 2006.

7. The Joint Collector, Khammam, by proceedings dated 04.09.2006 in Case No.E3/1399/2006 and connected matters, ordered correction of the entries in the Sub-Division Record in favour of the petitioners and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, to disburse ex-gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, accordingly addressed communication Rc.No.D/2096/96, dated 22.12.2006, to the Chief General Manager, SCCL, Manuguru, requesting deposit of the ex-gratia amount, along with a statement of the extent of land lost by each of the petitioners.

8. As no amount was released despite that communication, the petitioners instituted W.P.No.18109 of 2007 before this Court seeking a direction to SCCL to release the ex-gratia amount. During the pendency of that writ petition, the General Manager, SCCL, Manuguru, by proceedings Ref.No.MNG/EST/G/011/191, dated 05.07.2011, deposited the ex-gratia amount with the Sub- Collector, Paloncha, and the amount was disbursed to the petitioners in the year 2011.

9. The grievance now urged is that the ex-gratia so received does not answer the petitioners’ entitlement, and that they are entitled to compensation on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and, consequent upon its repeal, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’). It is on that footing that the present writ petition has been filed.

10. The eighth respondent, the General Manager, SCCL, Manuguru, filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. The fifth respondent, the Tahsildar, Manuguru, has subsequently placed written instructions on record before this Court through the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:

A. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though assignees, stand on the same footing as private pattadars so far as compensation is concerned, in view of the law laid down by a larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu (2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)=2004 (2) A.P.L.J. 108 (HC), which has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012. The ex-gratia paid under G.O.Ms.No.1307 is, it was submitted, a payment of grace and no substitute for compensation determined at market value.

12. It was further submitted that the issue arising in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 14.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015. That case concerned similarly placed assignees of lands in the very same village of Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, whose lands were taken over by SCCL for a connected public purpose, namely, the construction of a Pilot Colony, and who were likewise paid ex-gratia under the very same G.O.Ms.No.1307. This Court, following Mekala Pandu (supra), held that those assignees were entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits under the Act of 2013. Since the ratio of the larger Bench stands conclusively affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and since there is no material difference in the facts of the two cases, the petitioners are equally entitled to compensation on the same terms.

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.8

13. Learned standing counsel for SCCL contended that the land in question falls within a Scheduled (Agency) Area governed by special Agency laws, and that possession of the land was taken as far back as the year 1993. It was further contended that the exgratia demanded by the Joint Collector was duly paid by cheque in the year 2011, and that the ratio in Mekala Pandu(supra) does not apply retrospectively to takeovers effected in the early 1990s. It was accordingly prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as devoid of merit.

INSTRUCTIONS PLACED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

14. The written instructions placed on record by the fifth respondent through the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition present a materially different position. It is stated therein that it is a fact that the Government had assigned the land in Sy.No.341 to the petitioners or to their ancestors; that SCCL had made a requisition for the said extent for the purpose stated; that the lands of the petitioners were accordingly acquired, alienated and handed over to SCCL; and that ex-gratia was thereafter paid to the land losers. The instructions do not contradict the applicability of Mekala Pandu or the entitlement claimed by the petitioners, but merely place the factual position before this Court for such orders as may be deemed fit.

III. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

15. On a consideration of the pleadings, the material on record and the submissions made on either side, the following points arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the petitioners, being assignees of Government land taken over by SCCL for a public purpose, are entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits, over and above the exgratia already paid to them under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993?

               (ii) Whether the claim of the petitioners is liable to be negatived on the grounds urged on behalf of SCCL, namely, that the subject land lies within a Scheduled (Agency) Area governed by special laws, and that the takeover having been effected in the year 1993, the ratio in Mekala Pandu’s case(supra) does not govern it?

               (iii) To what relief?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Point (i) – Entitlement of the assignees to compensation on par with pattadars

16. Three facts are not in dispute, and indeed stand admitted on the record. First, the petitioners are the assignees of the subject lands in Sy.No.341. Secondly, those lands were taken over for the public purpose of establishing a Vocational Training Centre and a Coal Dumping Yard, possession having been delivered to SCCL under the panchanama dated 30.05.1993. Thirdly, what was paid to the petitioners in the year 2011 was ex-gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. The question that survives is, therefore, a narrow one: whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on par with private pattadars over and above the exgratia already disbursed.

17. The answer to that question is furnished by the law declared by a larger Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu’s case(supra), which held that an assignee of Government land whose land is taken for a public purpose is entitled to compensation on par with a private pattadar. That view was carried in appeal and was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.7904-7912 of 2012. The declaration of law therefore holds the field and binds this, Court.

18. The very question has already been applied to assignees of this very village. By common order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015, this Court dealt with assignees of the same Koya Scheduled Tribe community, residents of the very same Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, whose lands in Sy.No.341 were similarly taken over by SCCL for the construction of a Pilot Colony, and who were compensated under the very same G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23.12.1993. It was noticed therein that the predecessors-in-title of those petitioners had earlier obtained a common order dated 19.08.2008 in W.P.Nos.20346 and 22107 of 2002, enhancing solatium to 30% and declaring that, in the event the view taken in Mekala Pandu’s case was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioners therein would become entitled to payment of market value on par with private pattadars under the applicable Act. That contingency having come to pass on 04.08.2014, this Court, by the common order dated 14.08.2023, held those petitioners entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars in terms of the Act of 2013 and directed the respondents, including SCCL, to complete the exercise of payment within the time stipulated.

19. The operative portion of the said common order dated 14.08.2023 reads thus:

               “8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Writ Petitions are allowed directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the subject lands at market value on par with the private pattadars, by duly ying with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The respondents are directed to complete the entire exercise for payment of compensation, as directed above, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

20. The payment of ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.No.1307 does not stand in the way of that entitlement. Ex-gratia, as the expression itself indicates, is a payment made as a matter of grace and by way of an administrative measure of relief; it is not compensation determined upon an assessment of market value, nor does it carry the statutory benefits that accompany an award. A payment of that character cannot be treated as satisfaction of a right to compensation which the law recognises. At the highest, the sum already received is liable to be adjusted against what is finally worked out, and no more.

21. The respondents have not shown any material distinction between the facts of the present case and those considered in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015. Both sets of petitioners are assignees of land in Sy.No.341 of the same village of Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal; in both, the land was taken over by SCCL for a public purpose; and in both, what was disbursed initially was ex-gratia under G.O.Ms.No.1307. In the absence of any distinguishing feature, judicial discipline requires this Court to follow the view already taken by a coordinate Bench in respect of similarly placed assignees of the very same village, the more so where that view rests upon the ratio of a larger Bench of this Court as conclusively affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. To hold otherwise would be to place the petitioners, who are identically situated, on a footing different from their own neighbours, which Article 14 does not permit.

22. Point (i) is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits, under the provisions of the Act of 2013, in the same terms as directed in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015.

Point (ii) – The objections as to Agency Area and as to the date of takeover

23. The first objection is that the subject land lies within a Scheduled (Agency) Area governed by special Agency laws. The objection was urged, but no provision of any such law was placed before this Court which disentitles an assignee in a Scheduled Area to compensation for land taken from him for a public purpose. The special laws that operate in the Agency tracts are protective in character. They were enacted to safeguard the lands of tribals against alienation and to preserve their possession. Such a protective regime cannot be turned around and pressed into service to defeat the claim of the very class it was meant to protect. If anything, the fact that the petitioners belong to the Koya Scheduled Tribe and hold assigned lands in a Scheduled Area strengthens, rather than weakens, their claim to be paid the full value of what was taken from them. It may also be noticed that the lands dealt with by the coordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015 lie in the same village and are equally within the Agency tract, and the objection did not prevail there.

24. The second objection is that the ratio in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) does not apply ‘retrospectively’ to a takeover effected in the year 1993. The objection proceeds upon a misconception of what a judicial declaration does. The entitlement of an assignee to compensation on par with a pattadar flows from the nature of the right that vested in the assignee at the point of taking, and not from the date on which this Court, or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, happened to declare the law. A declaration of law by a Constitutional Court is ordinarily declaratory of the law as it always stood; it does not create a new right operating only from the date of the judgment, unless the judgment itself so directs. No such limitation was engrafted in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra), or in its affirmance by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.08.2014, or in the common order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015, which itself concerned a takeover effected decade earlier.

25. There is a further answer to the same objection on the facts. The claim of these petitioners has been alive throughout. It was pursued in W.P.No.20602 of 1995 and disposed of on 25.10.1997; it was carried before the Joint Collector, who passed orders on 04.09.2006; it was pursued again in W.P.No.18109 of 2007; and even the ex-gratia demanded as early as 22.12.2006 was deposited by SCCL only on 05.07.2011. A claim so continuously agitated cannot be met by the plea that the taking was long ago, particularly when a substantial part of the delay is attributable to the respondents themselves.

26. Nor do the written instructions placed on record by the fifth respondent lend any support to these objections. Those instructions affirm the assignment in favour of the petitioners, the requisition by SCCL, the taking over of the lands and the payment of ex-gratia, and expressly leave the matter to this Court. Point (ii) is accordingly answered against the respondents.

Point (iii) – Relief

27. In view of the findings recorded on Points (i) and (ii), the petitioners are entitled to a direction for payment of compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits under the Act of 2013, on the same terms as were directed in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015. The ex-gratia already received by the petitioners in the year 2011 shall be adjusted while working out the compensation, so that there is no double payment. Since the taking dates back to the year 1993 and the petitioners have been pursuing their claim for close to three decades, the exercise ought to be completed within a fixed time frame.

CONCLUSION

28. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the petitioners, being assignees of Government land in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, which was taken over by SCCL for a public purpose, are entitled to compensation at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits, in terms of the ratio laid down in Mekala Pandu’s case (supra) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as applied by this Court in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015. The objections raised on behalf of SCCL, founded upon the Agency character of the land and upon the date of the takeover, are without substance and are rejected. The ex-gratia already paid is liable to be adjusted, but does not extinguish the entitlement.

RESULT

29. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms:

               (i) The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the subject lands in Sy.No.341 of Bandarugudem village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, at market value on par with private pattadars, together with all statutory benefits payable under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the same terms as directed by this Court in the common order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015.

               (ii) The ex-gratia amount already disbursed to the petitioners in the year 2011 shall be duly adjusted while working out the compensation payable in terms of direction (i) above.

               (iii) The exercise of computing and disbursing the compensation shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               (iv) The Registry is directed to append a copy of the common order dated 14.08.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.30148 and 28116 of 2015 to this order, for the ready reference of the respondents.

30. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.