CASE DETAILS v. STATE OF TELANGANA & Ors.

Held: Assignees not entitled to any compensation on account of the resumption order of the assigned land – Resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it – Term ‘resumption’ must not be confl ated with the term ‘acquisition’ as employed within the meaning of Art. 300-A so as to create a right to compensation – Also allegations against the assignees for being involved with the land mafi a to usurp the subject land for private interest – Constitution of India – Art. 300 A – Compensation – Telengana Land Revenue Act of 1317 – ss. 54, 58, 58A and 166B. [Paras 73 and 74] Property Laws – Term ‘acquisition’ and ‘resumption’ – Diff erence between: Held: Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual’s enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property in furtherance of its policy whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the fi rst place – Term ‘resumption’ must not be confl ated YADAIAH AND ANR. v.

STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS 605 with the term ‘acquisition’ as employed within the meaning of Art. 300-A of the Constitution so as to create a right to compensation – Constitution of India – Art. 300 A. [Paras 73] Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata – Application of – Eff ective test to determine: Held: Effective test to distinguish between a fundamental or collateral determination is hinged on the inquiry of whether the concerned determination was so vital to the decision that without which the decision itself cannot stand independently – Any determination, despite being deliberate or formal, cannot give rise to application of the doctrine of res judicata if they are not fundamental in nature. [Paras 45] Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of res judicata or the extended doctrine of constructive res judicata – Application of – Stated. [Paras 40-48] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Govt. of A.P. v.

Gudepu Sailoo (2000) 4 SCC 625 : [2000] 3 SCR 791; Parvant Nagar v. the Collector and District Magistrate 2008 SCC OnLine AP 477; G.V.K. Rama Rao vs Bakelite Hylam Employees Co- Op. 1997 SCC OnLine AP 200; S. Santhanam v State of A.P. 2006 SCC OnLine AP 145; LAO cum Revenue Divisional Offi cer, Chevella Division v Mekala Pandu 2004 SCC OnLine AP 217; Yeshwant Deorao Deshmukh v Walchand Ramchand Kothari (1950) SCC 766; Dharama Reddy v Sub-Collector, Bodhan 1986 SCC OnLine AP 141; A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society (2006) 10 SCC 96 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 702; Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochi Ram Nag Deo (1999) 4 SCC 243 : [1999] 2 SCR 767; Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer (2000) 3 SCC 350 : [2000] 1 SCR 1095; State of UP v. Nawab Hussain (1977) 2 SCC 806 : [1977] 3 SCR 428; Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy (2003) 7 SCC 667 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 698; Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1118; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713; Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 : [2011] 11 SCR 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.