1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:

               “…to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the petitioner’s land admeasuring 5-00 acres in Sy.No.1, situated at Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcharla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without following due process of law and without initiated any proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and unconstitutional and in gross violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to pay the compensation as per the existing market value and also with interest and damages and pass …”

2. Heard Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The claim in this writ petition rests on the title of Smt. Pentamma, petitioner No.1, who is since deceased and is represented by petitioner No.2 as her legal representative (for short, ‘the original petitioner’). She claimed to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (for short, ‘the subject land’). The subject land was originally Government land. It is stated to have been assigned to her husband, late Ranga Reddy, on payment of its value, pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in File No.B/5/1843/1953 dated 14.03.1953. After his death, the subject land was transferred to the name of the original petitioner in the revenue records on 05.06.1977.

4. It is stated that in 1998 the Government proposed to resume the subject land for construction of an Ashram School and Government quarters. According to the petitioners, possession of the subject land was taken on 12.12.1998, and a panchanama was conducted on 13.02.1999 recording that the land had been resumed and that possession had been taken by the Government. Despite taking possession, the authorities did not pay any compensation. The original petitioner therefore got a legal notice issued on 18.03.2001 and thereafter approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, seeking payment of compensation.

5. In proceedings No.E4/491/01, July, 2002, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed the District Collector and recorded that the subject land had been assigned to the husband of the original petitioner on payment of market value in 1953, and that it had subsequently been resumed and taken into Government custody for construction of a school. The proceedings also referred to payment of ex-gratia/compensation to the concerned assignee on receipt of funds. According to the petitioners, no amount was ultimately paid.

6. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the authorities, the original petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21218 of 2005. That writ petition was disposed of on 04.01.2013 with a direction to the authorities to consider her claim. The petitioners state that this direction was not implemented.

7. Hence the present writ petition, in which the petitioners contend that the respondents took possession of and utilized the subject land without following due process of law and without paying compensation. They seek a direction to the respondents to pay compensation at the prevailing market value, along with interest and damages for the alleged illegal taking and continued utilization of the subject land.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents took possession of and utilized the subject land without following due process of law and without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’) or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (for short, ‘2013 Act’). It is submitted that no compensation has been paid to the petitioners, and that the direction given in W.P.No.21218 of 2005 has not been implemented.

9. The petitioners further rely upon the 2013 Act, which came into force on 01.01.2014. They contend that, in the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, they are entitled to compensation in accordance with the prevailing law, together with interest and damages for the period during which the Government has remained in possession of the subject land. They also assert that, since the original assignment was made on 14.03.1953, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘1977 Act’), according to the judicial view relied upon by them, would not apply to an assignment made prior to 25.07.1958.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the subject land forms part of Government land in Sy.No.1/1 of Chitteboinpally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, and that an extent of Ac.22-18 guntas was acquired for public purposes, including construction of the New District Jail, an Ashram School for Scheduled Tribes, Government quarters and agricultural activities for prisoners. Though the petitioners claim that an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas was assigned to the late Sri Ranga Reddy, there is no record evidencing such assignment.

11. It is submitted that the subject land was resumed on 17.12.1998 after due notice, as it was Government assigned land required for a public purpose, and that compensation was fixed at Rs.10,500/- per acre, treating the land on par with patta land. The other land losers accepted the compensation, whereas the petitioner did not come forward to receive it.

12. The respondents further submit that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005, which was disposed of on 04.01.2013 directing the respondent authorities to consider her case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the market value and determined compensation at Rs.10,500/- per acre. The compensation payable to the petitioner for Ac.5-00 guntas was thereafter worked out at Rs.1,79,110/-, including consequential benefits, in accordance with the 1894 Act, and proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, for release of the amount. It is submitted that possession of the subject land was taken on 27.11.2006 under a panchanama and that the acquisition/resumption proceedings were duly finalized under the applicable provisions of law. Since the petitioner failed to come forward to receive the compensation, the respondents cannot be said to be in default, and the petitioner is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act.

13. It is further submitted that the Government was competent to alienate the land for a public purpose in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.263, Revenue (P) Department, dated 11.03.1970, and that proceedings were accordingly issued for alienation of Ac.22-18 guntas in Sy.No.1/1 in favour of the Superintendent of District Jail, Mahabubnagar. The respondents have already taken steps for payment of the compensation determined at Rs.1,79,110/- to the petitioner and are ready to make the payment upon release of the amount by the District Collector. In these circumstances, the respondents contend that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by them and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

14. On the pleadings and the submissions made, the following points arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the petitioners have established that the subject land, admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1, Chittaboinapally Village, was assigned to the husband of the original petitioner and was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose?

               (ii) Whether the petitioners, being assignees of Government land, are entitled to compensation on par with pattadars?

               (iii) Whether the compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents can be treated as a lawful determination and payment of compensation and, if not, under which law the compensation is to be determined?

               (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the declaration and to compensation at the prevailing market value with interest and damages, as prayed for, and to what relief?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

15. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to determination and payment of compensation in respect of Ac.5-00 guntas of land under the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the contention of the respondents that the subject land was resumed and compensation was determined under the 1894 Act. The points framed above are taken up in turn.

Point (i): Assignment, resumption and utilization of the subject land

16. The material on record shows that the subject land was originally Government land and that the petitioners claim through an assignment made in favour of the husband of the original petitioner in the year 1953. Significantly, the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to by the petitioners also record the assignment and the subsequent resumption of the land for a public purpose.

17. Even in the counter-affidavit, the respondents do not dispute that the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas claimed by the petitioners was resumed and utilized for Government purposes. The respondents themselves worked out the compensation payable to the petitioner for this extent, which is difficult to reconcile with their plea that there is no record of the assignment.

18. The parties differ on the dates relating to the taking of possession. The petitioners say that possession was taken on 12.12.1998 and a panchanama was drawn on 13.02.1999, whereas the respondents say that the land was resumed on 17.12.1998 and that possession was taken under a panchanama dated 27.11.2006. Irrespective of this discrepancy, the factum of deprivation of the petitioners’ property and its utilization for a public purpose is not seriously in dispute. Point (i) is held accordingly.

Point (ii): Entitlement of assignees to compensation

19. The further contention of the respondents that the petitioner is only an assignee of Government land and, therefore, is not entitled to compensation equivalent to the market value, cannot be accepted. The larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu (2004 (2) A.P.L.J. 108 (HC).) held that assignees of Government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and to the other consequential benefits available under the land acquisition law, even where the land is resumed by the State for a public purpose. The relevant paragraph is extracted as follows:

               “109. 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 shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.”

20. The said principle has also been applied in subsequent decisions, holding that the status of an assignee cannot be used to deprive such a person of just compensation when the State takes the land for a public purpose. The petitioners, being assignees whose land was resumed and utilized for a public purpose, are therefore entitled to compensation on par with pattadars. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to examine the contention of the petitioners regarding the applicability of the 1977 Act to an assignment made prior to 25.07.1958.

Point (ii) is held accordingly. Point (iii): Lawful determination and payment of compensation

21. In the present case, the determination of compensation at the flat rate of Rs.10,500/- per acre, without undertaking a proper determination of the market value and of the statutory benefits applicable to the taking of the land, cannot be sustained.

22. The respondents themselves state that, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005, the claim of the petitioner was considered and an amount of Rs.1,79,110/- was worked out towards compensation and consequential benefits. However, the respondents have not demonstrated that the said determination was made by applying the principles governing determination of compensation under the prevailing land acquisition law or by undertaking a proper assessment of the market value of the subject land. Mere preparation of a statement of account or submission of proposals to the District Collector cannot, by itself, constitute lawful determination and payment of just compensation for deprivation of property. The respondents also state that they are ready to pay the amount upon its release by the District Collector, which shows that the amount has not been paid even now.

23. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India mandates that deprivation of property must be by authority of law, and where property is taken for a public purpose, the State cannot retain the benefit of such deprivation while denying the landholder legally admissible compensation. The Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh ((2020) 2 SCC 569.) held that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, continues as a constitutional right under Article 300-A and is also a human right, and that the State cannot deprive a person of property without the sanction of law.

24. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not come forward to receive the compensation, and that they cannot therefore be said to be in default, is also unsustainable. The original petitioner has been pursuing her claim since the legal notice dated 18.03.2001, before the Revenue Divisional Officer and before this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005. A sum fixed at a flat rate, without a proper determination of the market value, is not compensation that the petitioner was bound to accept.

25. As regards the applicable law, the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. In the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, the compensation has to be determined under the 2013 Act. Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act itself provides that, where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made before the commencement of the 2013 Act, all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Having regard to the subsequent statutory regime under the 2013 Act and the law governing compensation payable to assignees, the petitioners are entitled to have the compensation claim considered under the said enactment, rather than being confined to the amount of Rs.10,500/- per acre fixed by the respondents. The determination shall take into account the market value in the manner prescribed by the Act, solatium, interest and other statutory and consequential benefits to which the petitioners are legally entitled. The entitlement to such compensation cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the land was originally assigned Government land. Point (iii) is held accordingly.

Point (iv): Relief

26. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the respondents took possession of the subject land wholly without authority of law and without following any proceedings, and for compensation at the prevailing market value together with interest and damages. The prayer for declaration cannot be granted in its entirety, having regard to the material on record showing that the land was resumed for a public purpose and that the respondents had undertaken proceedings for determination of compensation.

27. At the same time, the respondents have failed to establish that the compensation payable to the petitioners was finally and lawfully determined and paid in accordance with the applicable law. Therefore, while the petitioners are entitled to the consequential relief of determination and payment of compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act, this Court is not inclined to grant the entire relief of compensation at the prevailing market value together with damages as prayed for. The precise quantum of compensation requires determination by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act and the law declared in Mekala Pandu (supra). The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Point (iv) is held accordingly.

CONCLUSION

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1, situated at Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose. The compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the consequential amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents cannot be treated as the final determination of the compensation payable to the petitioners. The petitioners, being assignees whose land has been resumed and utilized for a public purpose, are entitled to compensation on par with the pattadars and to all consequential statutory benefits. In the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, the compensation is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 2013 Act, including the enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits available thereunder.

29. The points for consideration are answered accordingly:

               (i) The petitioners have established that the subject land was assigned and that it was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose.

               (ii) The petitioners, as assignees, are entitled to compensation on par with pattadars.

               (iii) The compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents cannot be treated as a lawful determination and payment of compensation. The compensation is to be determined under the 2013 Act.

               (iv) The petitioners are entitled to determination and payment of compensation under the 2013 Act. The prayer for a declaration, and for compensation at the prevailing market value with damages as prayed for, is not granted in its entirety.

RESULT AND DIRECTIONS

30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part with the following directions:

               a) The respondents are directed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in respect of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

               b) While determining the compensation, the competent authority shall take into consideration the market value of the subject land in accordance with the statutory parameters, solatium, interest and all other statutory and consequential benefits, including rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, if otherwise applicable to the petitioners under the governing law.

          c) The entire exercise of determination and payment shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall communicate the determination so made to the petitioners and shall release the amount payable to them without further delay.

31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:

               “…to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the petitioner’s land admeasuring 5-00 acres in Sy.No.1, situated at Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcharla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without following due process of law and without initiated any proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and unconstitutional and in gross violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents to pay the compensation as per the existing market value and also with interest and damages and pass …”

2. Heard Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The claim in this writ petition rests on the title of Smt. Pentamma, petitioner No.1, who is since deceased and is represented by petitioner No.2 as her legal representative (for short, ‘the original petitioner’). She claimed to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (for short, ‘the subject land’). The subject land was originally Government land. It is stated to have been assigned to her husband, late Ranga Reddy, on payment of its value, pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in File No.B/5/1843/1953 dated 14.03.1953. After his death, the subject land was transferred to the name of the original petitioner in the revenue records on 05.06.1977.

4. It is stated that in 1998 the Government proposed to resume the subject land for construction of an Ashram School and Government quarters. According to the petitioners, possession of the subject land was taken on 12.12.1998, and a panchanama was conducted on 13.02.1999 recording that the land had been resumed and that possession had been taken by the Government. Despite taking possession, the authorities did not pay any compensation. The original petitioner therefore got a legal notice issued on 18.03.2001 and thereafter approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, seeking payment of compensation.

5. In proceedings No.E4/491/01, July, 2002, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed the District Collector and recorded that the subject land had been assigned to the husband of the original petitioner on payment of market value in 1953, and that it had subsequently been resumed and taken into Government custody for construction of a school. The proceedings also referred to payment of ex-gratia/compensation to the concerned assignee on receipt of funds. According to the petitioners, no amount was ultimately paid.

6. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the authorities, the original petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21218 of 2005. That writ petition was disposed of on 04.01.2013 with a direction to the authorities to consider her claim. The petitioners state that this direction was not implemented.

7. Hence the present writ petition, in which the petitioners contend that the respondents took possession of and utilized the subject land without following due process of law and without paying compensation. They seek a direction to the respondents to pay compensation at the prevailing market value, along with interest and damages for the alleged illegal taking and continued utilization of the subject land.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents took possession of and utilized the subject land without following due process of law and without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’) or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (for short, ‘2013 Act’). It is submitted that no compensation has been paid to the petitioners, and that the direction given in W.P.No.21218 of 2005 has not been implemented.

9. The petitioners further rely upon the 2013 Act, which came into force on 01.01.2014. They contend that, in the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, they are entitled to compensation in accordance with the prevailing law, together with interest and damages for the period during which the Government has remained in possession of the subject land. They also assert that, since the original assignment was made on 14.03.1953, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘1977 Act’), according to the judicial view relied upon by them, would not apply to an assignment made prior to 25.07.1958.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

10. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the subject land forms part of Government land in Sy.No.1/1 of Chitteboinpally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, and that an extent of Ac.22-18 guntas was acquired for public purposes, including construction of the New District Jail, an Ashram School for Scheduled Tribes, Government quarters and agricultural activities for prisoners. Though the petitioners claim that an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas was assigned to the late Sri Ranga Reddy, there is no record evidencing such assignment.

11. It is submitted that the subject land was resumed on 17.12.1998 after due notice, as it was Government assigned land required for a public purpose, and that compensation was fixed at Rs.10,500/- per acre, treating the land on par with patta land. The other land losers accepted the compensation, whereas the petitioner did not come forward to receive it.

12. The respondents further submit that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005, which was disposed of on 04.01.2013 directing the respondent authorities to consider her case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the market value and determined compensation at Rs.10,500/- per acre. The compensation payable to the petitioner for Ac.5-00 guntas was thereafter worked out at Rs.1,79,110/-, including consequential benefits, in accordance with the 1894 Act, and proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, for release of the amount. It is submitted that possession of the subject land was taken on 27.11.2006 under a panchanama and that the acquisition/resumption proceedings were duly finalized under the applicable provisions of law. Since the petitioner failed to come forward to receive the compensation, the respondents cannot be said to be in default, and the petitioner is not entitled to seek compensation under the 2013 Act.

13. It is further submitted that the Government was competent to alienate the land for a public purpose in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.263, Revenue (P) Department, dated 11.03.1970, and that proceedings were accordingly issued for alienation of Ac.22-18 guntas in Sy.No.1/1 in favour of the Superintendent of District Jail, Mahabubnagar. The respondents have already taken steps for payment of the compensation determined at Rs.1,79,110/- to the petitioner and are ready to make the payment upon release of the amount by the District Collector. In these circumstances, the respondents contend that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by them and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

14. On the pleadings and the submissions made, the following points arise for consideration:

               (i) Whether the petitioners have established that the subject land, admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1, Chittaboinapally Village, was assigned to the husband of the original petitioner and was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose?

               (ii) Whether the petitioners, being assignees of Government land, are entitled to compensation on par with pattadars?

               (iii) Whether the compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents can be treated as a lawful determination and payment of compensation and, if not, under which law the compensation is to be determined?

               (iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the declaration and to compensation at the prevailing market value with interest and damages, as prayed for, and to what relief?

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

15. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to determination and payment of compensation in respect of Ac.5-00 guntas of land under the 2013 Act, notwithstanding the contention of the respondents that the subject land was resumed and compensation was determined under the 1894 Act. The points framed above are taken up in turn.

Point (i): Assignment, resumption and utilization of the subject land

16. The material on record shows that the subject land was originally Government land and that the petitioners claim through an assignment made in favour of the husband of the original petitioner in the year 1953. Significantly, the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to by the petitioners also record the assignment and the subsequent resumption of the land for a public purpose.

17. Even in the counter-affidavit, the respondents do not dispute that the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas claimed by the petitioners was resumed and utilized for Government purposes. The respondents themselves worked out the compensation payable to the petitioner for this extent, which is difficult to reconcile with their plea that there is no record of the assignment.

18. The parties differ on the dates relating to the taking of possession. The petitioners say that possession was taken on 12.12.1998 and a panchanama was drawn on 13.02.1999, whereas the respondents say that the land was resumed on 17.12.1998 and that possession was taken under a panchanama dated 27.11.2006. Irrespective of this discrepancy, the factum of deprivation of the petitioners’ property and its utilization for a public purpose is not seriously in dispute. Point (i) is held accordingly.

Point (ii): Entitlement of assignees to compensation

19. The further contention of the respondents that the petitioner is only an assignee of Government land and, therefore, is not entitled to compensation equivalent to the market value, cannot be accepted. The larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu (2004 (2) A.P.L.J. 108 (HC).) held that assignees of Government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and to the other consequential benefits available under the land acquisition law, even where the land is resumed by the State for a public purpose. The relevant paragraph is extracted as follows:

               “109. 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 shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.”

20. The said principle has also been applied in subsequent decisions, holding that the status of an assignee cannot be used to deprive such a person of just compensation when the State takes the land for a public purpose. The petitioners, being assignees whose land was resumed and utilized for a public purpose, are therefore entitled to compensation on par with pattadars. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to examine the contention of the petitioners regarding the applicability of the 1977 Act to an assignment made prior to 25.07.1958.

Point (ii) is held accordingly. Point (iii): Lawful determination and payment of compensation

21. In the present case, the determination of compensation at the flat rate of Rs.10,500/- per acre, without undertaking a proper determination of the market value and of the statutory benefits applicable to the taking of the land, cannot be sustained.

22. The respondents themselves state that, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005, the claim of the petitioner was considered and an amount of Rs.1,79,110/- was worked out towards compensation and consequential benefits. However, the respondents have not demonstrated that the said determination was made by applying the principles governing determination of compensation under the prevailing land acquisition law or by undertaking a proper assessment of the market value of the subject land. Mere preparation of a statement of account or submission of proposals to the District Collector cannot, by itself, constitute lawful determination and payment of just compensation for deprivation of property. The respondents also state that they are ready to pay the amount upon its release by the District Collector, which shows that the amount has not been paid even now.

23. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India mandates that deprivation of property must be by authority of law, and where property is taken for a public purpose, the State cannot retain the benefit of such deprivation while denying the landholder legally admissible compensation. The Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh ((2020) 2 SCC 569.) held that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, continues as a constitutional right under Article 300-A and is also a human right, and that the State cannot deprive a person of property without the sanction of law.

24. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not come forward to receive the compensation, and that they cannot therefore be said to be in default, is also unsustainable. The original petitioner has been pursuing her claim since the legal notice dated 18.03.2001, before the Revenue Divisional Officer and before this Court in W.P.No.21218 of 2005. A sum fixed at a flat rate, without a proper determination of the market value, is not compensation that the petitioner was bound to accept.

25. As regards the applicable law, the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. In the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, the compensation has to be determined under the 2013 Act. Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act itself provides that, where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made before the commencement of the 2013 Act, all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Having regard to the subsequent statutory regime under the 2013 Act and the law governing compensation payable to assignees, the petitioners are entitled to have the compensation claim considered under the said enactment, rather than being confined to the amount of Rs.10,500/- per acre fixed by the respondents. The determination shall take into account the market value in the manner prescribed by the Act, solatium, interest and other statutory and consequential benefits to which the petitioners are legally entitled. The entitlement to such compensation cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the land was originally assigned Government land. Point (iii) is held accordingly.

Point (iv): Relief

26. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the respondents took possession of the subject land wholly without authority of law and without following any proceedings, and for compensation at the prevailing market value together with interest and damages. The prayer for declaration cannot be granted in its entirety, having regard to the material on record showing that the land was resumed for a public purpose and that the respondents had undertaken proceedings for determination of compensation.

27. At the same time, the respondents have failed to establish that the compensation payable to the petitioners was finally and lawfully determined and paid in accordance with the applicable law. Therefore, while the petitioners are entitled to the consequential relief of determination and payment of compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act, this Court is not inclined to grant the entire relief of compensation at the prevailing market value together with damages as prayed for. The precise quantum of compensation requires determination by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act and the law declared in Mekala Pandu (supra). The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Point (iv) is held accordingly.

CONCLUSION

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1, situated at Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose. The compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the consequential amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents cannot be treated as the final determination of the compensation payable to the petitioners. The petitioners, being assignees whose land has been resumed and utilized for a public purpose, are entitled to compensation on par with the pattadars and to all consequential statutory benefits. In the absence of a valid award under the 1894 Act, the compensation is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 2013 Act, including the enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits available thereunder.

29. The points for consideration are answered accordingly:

               (i) The petitioners have established that the subject land was assigned and that it was resumed and utilized by the respondents for a public purpose.

               (ii) The petitioners, as assignees, are entitled to compensation on par with pattadars.

               (iii) The compensation of Rs.10,500/- per acre and the amount of Rs.1,79,110/- proposed by the respondents cannot be treated as a lawful determination and payment of compensation. The compensation is to be determined under the 2013 Act.

               (iv) The petitioners are entitled to determination and payment of compensation under the 2013 Act. The prayer for a declaration, and for compensation at the prevailing market value with damages as prayed for, is not granted in its entirety.

RESULT AND DIRECTIONS

30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part with the following directions:

               a) The respondents are directed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in respect of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Chittaboinapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

               b) While determining the compensation, the competent authority shall take into consideration the market value of the subject land in accordance with the statutory parameters, solatium, interest and all other statutory and consequential benefits, including rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, if otherwise applicable to the petitioners under the governing law.

          c) The entire exercise of determination and payment shall be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall communicate the determination so made to the petitioners and shall release the amount payable to them without further delay.

31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.