STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P PEDA CHINNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these various types of cases, such as Appeal Suits, Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions etc., the nature of the dispute is common and is covered by the common question referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court in its order of reference, which is as follows:- "In all these cases the common question of law that arises for consideration is: Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act when the lands are resumed by the Govt., particularly when the lands resumed are assigned lands? In this regard there are conflicting views of Division Benches. "In W.P.Nos.6032 and 6727 of 1988 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair, J. and D. Reddeppa Reddi, J. held that the claimants are entitled to compensation only on compassionate grounds as per Govt. Orders but not under the Land Acquisition Act. In W.A. No.631/93 another Division Bench consisting of the Hon. the Chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J., held that the claimants are entitled for compensation under Govt. Orders and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act have no application. In W.P. No. 1048 of 92 disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court, it was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under Land Acquisition Act against which an appeal W.A. No.1066/93 was filed. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Hon. the Chief Justice and Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri, J., held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. "In view of the conflicting decisions of the Division Benches referred to above, we think it just and proper to have an authoritative pronouncement in this matter by a Full Bench. Accordingly, the matter is referred to a Full Bench.

(2.) In W.A. No.631 of 1993, Yengala Venkayamma and others vs. District Collector, Land Acquisition and others, decided on 27-1-1994, a Division Bench of this Court considered a case where compensation was claimed under the Act in respect of 'D' form patta lands, which were resumed by the Government after payment of market value to the assignees of Government lands. The Court found that it was a case of 'D' form patta lands "which were resumed in terms of the concerned Government Order. In such a contingency, it is not possible to put forth a plea for payment of solatium and interest as if the lands have been acquired strictly in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. Furthermore, the appellants did receive the compensation as per market value voluntarily and gave up the lands". We are of the view that though this case does not lay down incorrect law, it requires some clarification, which we shall be doing hereafter.

(3.) The last case referred to in the order of reference is W.A. No.1066 of 1993, Government of A.P. and others vs. Daravath Dakya and others, decided on 27-1-1994. In this case, without resumption of the patta land or initiation of any proceeding for acquisition under the Act, the assignees were dispossessed from their patta lands. In a petition filed by the assignees of lands, the Government was directed by a learned single Judge of this Court to initiate proceedings under the Act and to pay compensation to the assignees of the lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by these directions of the learned single Judge, the Government filed Writ Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the direction made by the learned single Judge could not be said to be unjustified or against any principle of law, justice or equity. This decision of the Court in W.A. No.1066 of 1993 does not appear to be in conflict with the other decision of the Court in W.A.No.631 of 1993, because the facts in the two appeals were quite distinguishable, in one case, the assignees were rejected (sic. dispossessed) from their patta lands without resuming the same in accordance with the terms of the grant and without payment of any compensation to such assignees of lands. In the other case, the patta lands were resumed and the assignees were paid market value of their patta lands. The market value was also voluntarily accepted by them. In this background, the question that survives for consideration by this Full Bench may be reformulated as follows:-