M/s.Sri City Pvt. Ltd., Chennai v. N.Sakkubayamma (died) per LRs and others

Judgment

- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.Prakasam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.205 of 2014; Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.259 of 2014; Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition in W.A.No.848 of 2022; Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.26568 of 2014 and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the Writ Appeals.

2. W.A.No.205 of 2014 has been filed by M/s.Sri City Private Limited, Chennai through its Managing Director (respondent No.8 W.P.No.23208 of 2010). W.A.No.259 of 2014 has been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and its Chairman (APIICL) (respondent Nos.5 & 6 in W.P.No.23208 of 2010). W.A.No.848 of 2022 has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) and its authorities (respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.23208 of 2010). All the aforesaid writ appeals have been filed challenging the judgment/order dated 04.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 filed by the writ petitioners(respondents in the writ appeals). 6

3. W.P.No.26568 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioners, (other than the writ petitioners of W.P.No.23208 of 2010) challenging the order dated 26.07.2007 of resumption of land to set aside the same and inter- alia seeking direction to the State authorities to resort to the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the L.A. Act, 1894’) in case of such requirement for public purpose.

4. The writ petition No.26568 of 2014 has been filed with the delay of almost seven (07) years submitting the explanation that, after the order in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 they came to know about the memo filed by the Revenue authorities in W.P.No.23208 of 2010, clarifying the nature of the rights of the writ petitioners in their land, being non-alienable.

5. Learned counsels submit that W.P.No.26568 of 2014 involves similar facts and the issues as in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and against which the Writ Appeals have been filed.

6. The private respondents in the writ appeals will be referred as the petitioners/writ petitioners and the writ appellants as the appellants/writ appellants.

7. We have considered the counter affidavits, Memos filed by either side, brief submissions and the entire material on record. I. Facts:

8. Briefly stated, the writ petitioners claim that they were displaced from their land at Sriharikota, which were acquired for establishing a 7 Rocket Launching Station (RLS). They were given compensation amount and the rehabilitation facilities by granting land situated in Tondur Village. The State of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Industries and Commerce Department dated 02.11.1970 (‘G.O.Ms.No.1024’) for that purpose. G.O.Ms.No.1024:

9. The G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 02.11.1970 reads as under: Government of Andhra Pradesh Abstract REHABILITATION – SHAR project Rehabilitation or displaced persons on account of the construction of the project at Sriharikota Island – Principles to be followed orders – issued. Industries & Commerce (F.II) Department G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970 Read the following:

1. From the Collector, Nellore Lr.No.B.9/20336/69, dated 10.07.1970. Order The various matters connected with the rehabilitation of persons displaced consequent upon the acquisition of the lands under the Sriharikota project in Nellore District were considered at a meeting of the officers concerned, presided by the Chief Secretary on 23.09.1970, Government have carefully considered the decisions taken at the meeting. Government order that the following principles shall be adopted for rehabilitating the displaced persons.

1. The rehabilitation costs at Rs.500/- per family shall be born by the Atomic energy Department Government of India.

2. Displaced families who do not desire to be rehabilitated in the rehabilitation centres established by Government shall be given an outright cash grant of Rs.500/- per family by the Atomic Energy Department Government of India.

3. Displaced families seeking rehabilitation at the rehabilitation centres shall be provided house sites at the rate of 10 cents per family free of cost. They shall be provided with transport at Government costs to enable them to shift along with their belongings from the acquired village to the rehabilitation centres. Having regard to the practice followed in the case of other rehabilitation schemes the displaced families will be permitted to revoke free of cost the dismantled materials of residential buildings, while in respect of non- 8 residential buildings such removal may be permitted on payment of 75 percent of the assessed cost. At the rehabilitation centres the scrub jungles will be cleared and house sites and approach and internal roads will be laid at Government Cost. Amenities will also be provided at the rehabilitation centres in the shape of drinking water wells, community halls, school buildings and terminals, the scale being determined in accordance with requirements and taking into account the availability of funds. If after meeting the above items of expenditure any surplus funds are available out of the total allotment for rehabilitation calculated at .500/- per family which will be provided by the Government of India, the Collector, Nellore is requested to submit suitable proposals for provision of further amenities.

4. If any rehabilitation measures are required beyond Rs.500/- per family, it will be the responsibility of the State Government to find the resources for them. The Collector, is requested to draw no proposals and submit them to Govenment to saction. No amount should be sent without prior orders of Government.

5. Displaced families will also be granted, free of cost Government land for cultivation purposes equivalent of the extent acquired from them subject to a maximum of 5 acres of dry land or 2 acres of wet land per family. The remaining in the rehabilitations are after meeting. The above requirements will be assigned to landless poor persons among the displaced, under the normal assignment policy.

6. This order issues with the concurrent of Finance Department vide 4149/SSPP/70-1, dt.2.11.1970.. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRAUESH) Deputy Secretary to Government

10. The State and its authorities resumed the writ petitioners’ land for establishing a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) by M/s.Sri City Private Limited.

11. Their further case is that certain lands were sought to be acquired for establishing Industrial State. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupati issued notice on 28.12.2006 published in a local daily newspaper that, on the basis of requisition made 9 by APIICL, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was published on 16/18.03.2006, and the declaration under Section 6 was made and published between 11.11.2006 and 15.11.2006. The enquiries were completed and the final opportunity was given to the persons interested to submit their objections, if any, on or before

05.01.2007. W.P.No.561 of 2007:

12. The writ petitioners apprehending their forceful dispossession, filed W.P.No.561 of 2007 on 04.01.2007 seeking declaration that the notice and the action of the State seeking to dispossess the writ petitioners, without following due process of law, was illegal and contrary to the provisions of L.A. Act. However, in the writ petition, the LAO filed the counter and had taken a stand that the lands were assigned to the family members of the petitioners during the year 1970 and as per the G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 the reclamation and development charges for the DKT lands equivalent to the market value, to the assignees whose lands were resumed once for all for public purpose, by paying just and reasonable ex-gratia amount @ Rs.3.00 lakhs per acre for wet lands and Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre for dry lands apart from value of the trees to the DKT patta holders or their legal heirs, on par with the owners of the patta lands situated in Thonduru village. They stated further that, after completion of the Award enquiry, an Award was passed on

30.06.2007 for the patta lands to an extent of Ac.63.83 cents and 10 payment was made to the awardees. With regard to the lands in Thonduru Village, it was their stand that the action was being taken separately which was under progress and that the State would follow due legal procedure to resume DKT lands by paying reasonable ex-gratia to the assignees or their legal heirs.

13. The judgment dated 17.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.561 of 2007 reads as follows: “The petitioners are residents of Thonduru Village of Varadaiahpalyam Mandal in Chittoor District. It is stated that originally the petitioners were residing at Sriharikota, which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishing a Rocket Launching Station. After several deliberations, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 02.11.1970 providing rehabilitative facilities, pursuant to which the petitioners were granted lands situated in Thonduru Village. However, even the said lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate. The petitioners came to know of the said proceedings when the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 28.12.2006 which was published in a local daily stating that on the basis of a requisițion made by the APIIC, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was published on 16.03.2006 followed by declaration dated 11.11.2006 under Section 6 of the Act. It is also mentioned even the award enquiry was completed as per the provisions of the Act and to provide a final opportunity to the persons interested the notice dated 28.12.2006 was issued to submit the objections, if any, on or before 5.1.2007. Aggrieved by the said action and apprehending forcible dispossession, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on 4.01.2007seeking a declaration that the notice dated 28.12.2006 as well as the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them without following due process of law contemplated under the Act is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer while stating that the lands in question were assigned to the family members of the petitioners during the year 1970, It is explained as under: 11 "...As per G.O.Ms.No. 1307 dated 23.12.1993 reclamation and development charges for the DKT lands equivalent to the market value to the assignees whose lands are resumed once for all for public purposes by paying just and reasonable exgratia @ Rs.3.00 lakhs per acre for wet lands and Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre for dry lands apart from tree value to the DKT pattadars and their legal heirs on par with the owners of patta lands situated in Thonduru village.” It is further stated that after completion of Award enquiry, an Award was passed on 30.06.2007 so far as the patta lands to an extent of Ac.63.83 cents are concerned and payment was also made to the awardees. It is further explained that with regard to the lands in Thonduru Village action is being taken separately and it is under progress. It is also stated that the Government would follow due procedure under the Rules and Regulations in force in order to resume DKT lands by paying reasonable exgratia to the assignees and their legal heirs. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, even assuming that the petitioners herein are not the owners of the land in question, but they are only assignees, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, they cannot be denied the exgratia payable to the DKT pattaholders. As noticed above, it is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the respondents are taking necessary steps for payment of such exgratia to the DKT pattaholders. As a matter of fact, the 5th respondent, who got itself impleaded to the writ petition, stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned notice dated

28.12.2006 has nothing to do with the lands belonging to the petitioners and that the same was only with regard to the patta lands. However, even the 5th respondent conceded that the exgratia is payable to the assignees as per G.O.Ms.No. 1307 dated 23.12.1993. Having regard to the statement made in the above counter affidavits in which entitlement of the petitioners to receive the exgratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 is not disputed, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to determine the compensation so payable to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 dated 23.11.1993 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 12 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as l possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

14. The W.P.No.561 of 2007 was disposed of vide judgment dated

17.07.2008 with a direction to the respondents therein to determine the

compensation so payable to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 and pass orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge had observed that “having regard to the facts and circumstances, even assuming that the petitioners herein are not the owners of the land in question, but they are only assignees, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they cannot be denied the ex-gratia payable to the DKT patta holders. The learned Single Judge also observed that “as a matter of fact, respondent No.5 (M/s.Sri City Private Limited) who got itself impleaded in the writ petition, stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned notice dated 28.12.2006 had nothing to do with the lands belonging to the petitioners and that the same was only with regard to the patta lands. However even the respondent No.5 conceded that the exgratia was payable to the assignees as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993”. G.O.Ms.No.1307:

15. G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 is as under: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 13 COMPENSATION - Government assigned lands coming under submergence in Major and Medium Irrigation & Power Projects etc - Payment of compensation to assigned lands, when resumed for public purpose - orders REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT.I) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.1307 Dated: 23-12-1993 Read the following: -

1. G.O.Ms.No. 180, Rev.(B) Dept., dt 9-2-84

2. G.O.Ms.No.603, Rev.(B) Dept., dt 28-5-86

3. G.O.Ms.No.43, Rev.(B) Dept., dt 23-1-88

4. G.O.Ms.No.428, Rev.(B) Dept., dt 25-4-92

5. From the CLR. Lr.No.G1/2632/80, dt 22-2-92 ### ORDER:- In G.O.Ms.No.180, Revenue (B) Department, dt 9-2-84 and G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (B) Department, dt 28-5-86, orders were issued to the effect that Government lands, which have been assigned on “D” form patta to landless poor persons and which will come under submersion of any Major, Medium Irrigation and Power Projects, or are required for industrial projects, shall be resumed by the Government and assignees of such lands shall be paid compensation on compassionate grounds at the market value fixed for similar patta lands in the village, which were acquired under the provision of Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Act 1984. It was however, ordered that no compensation need be paid, where alternative lands are given to the assignees.

2. Subsequently the said orders were modified in G.O.Ms.No.43, Revenue (B) Department, dt. 23-1-1988 restricting such compensation to be commensurate with the verifiable improvements made to the land by the assignees. Further clarification was issued in G.O.Ms.No.428, Revenue (Asn.l) Department, dt 25- 4-92. 3. The Commissioner of Land Revenue in his letter 5th read above, has stated that it is just and proper that the assignees, whose lands are resumed once for all in Projects, are paid suitable compensation on par with other pattadars, as they are also displaced by virtue of resumption of their lands and they also lose their livelihood. It is, therefore, suggested that, exgratia equivalent to the market value of the land, be paid subject to certain conditions. 14

4. In the Empowered Committee Meeting held on 21-6-93, during the discussions, the issue regarding payment of compensation equivalent to the market value to the assignees, whose lands are resumed once for all for public purpose on par with other pattadars as suggested by Commissioner of Land Revenue came up for discussion and it was decided to place the proposal before the Cabinet.

5. The Government after careful examination of the matter in consultation with the commissioner of Land Revenue, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department and Finance Department hereby order payment of / ex-gratia equivalent to the market value, to the assignees whose lands are resumed for the projects and other public purposes and equivalent to valuation for other private orchards and structures, wells etc removing the distinction stipulated in para (3) of G.O.Ms.No.428, Revenue (Asn.l) Department, dt 25-4- 92, subject to the following conditions:- (a) that the amount is to be treated as ex-gratia; (b) that the assignees would not be entitled for making references under Section 18 and Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act to the Courts; (c) an amount equivalent to 15% for the lands resumed prior to 30-4-82 and 30% after what date, on the market value payable under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act may be considered for being included in the total ex-gratia payable to the assignees as solatium; (d) that the assignees will not be entitled for interest or additional market value under the Land Acquisition Act; (e) that the above conditions shall be made applicable to all the assigned lands resumed on or after 9-2-1984 (i.e. that date of issue of G.O.Ms.No. 180, Revenue, dated 9-2-04, in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.43, Revenue (B) Department, dt 23-1-88.

6. The Commissioner of Land Revenue shall take action in the matter accordingly. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDRA PRADESH) M.NARAYANA RAO, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” 15

16. We may observe that it is the admitted position as submitted by the learned counsels for both the sides that, the writ petitioners’ land was not the subject matter of the acquisition notification under the L.A. Act.

17. The writ petitioners’ land was resumed vide ROC.F/1326/07 dated

23.09.2008 by the Chairman, Thondur Cooperation Joint Forming Society (‘CJFS’) & Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. The order of resumption was passed that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was leased out to the persons names mentioned in the schedule and as per the lease conditions, the lessee must make arrangements for cultivation of land within three years from the date of lease and it could not be encroached and the lessee must be the villager. As per condition Nos.1 & 2 of the lease, the Government sought to resume the land for APIICL to establish industrial zone to provide employment. Notice was issued vide ROC.F/1326/07 dated 06.08.2008 to which the explanation was submitted by the lease holders stating inter-alia that the land in Survey number, as mentioned in the schedule, was given in lieu of rehabilitation compensation for Sri Harikota evacuees. The land did not belong to the Cooperation Joint Forming Society (‘CJFS’) and the compensation sought to be paid was not acceptable. On consideration of the reply the CJFS lease patta was cancelled vide Rc.No.F/1326/07 dated 23.09.2008 by the RDO. It was held that the lessee was a member of the CJFS by paying amount and obtained admission No.78 and the CJFS lease/patta was cancelled in terms of condition No.17. The Tahsildar was directed to 16 conduct panchanama and to take possession for the State and mutate the name of the State.

18. The cancellation of CJFS lease/patta vide Rc.No.F/1326/07 dated

23.09.2008 reads as under: “Office of the Thondur & Revenue Divisional Officer Present: Sri M. Venkateshwara Rao, M.Com., RC.No.F/1326/07, Date: 23.09.2008. Sub: CJFS Lands - - Chittoor District – Varadaiahpalem Mandal – Thondur Village Sri /Smt. Nimmala Sakkubayamma W/o. Munuswamy, informed in the schedule DKT/ CJFS. Alloted through Lease - Applicable land acquisition by the Government -orders issued.

1. Zonal Manager, APICC, Tirupati, Ref: Officer)/TPT/LA/Thondur, 13/06, DT. 23.02.2006. 2. Chairmen, Co-operative Joint Forming Society, Thonduru and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Notice. R.C.No.F/1326/07, Dated. 06.08.2008. Lr, No.ZO(Spl. ORDER: The following land is leased out to the persons mentioned in the schedule who are members of the Cooperative Joint forming Society by way of DKT / CJFS lease. Sy.No. Extent Ac. Cents Punja/ Sanja SCHEDULE DKT/ CJFS Sanctioned Lease Order No. and Date Application, CJFS Lease holder Name Father/ Husband Name 1 2 2.40 3 Punja 4 145/4/1401 5 Nimmala Sakkubayamma 6 Munuswamy. As per the lease conditions of the DKT/CJFS lessee must make arrangements for cultivation of land within 3 years from the date of lease and it cannot be encroached and he must be the villager: As per condition No.1 and 2 of the lease granted to the DKT/CJFS pattadar/ Legal heir, the Government is sought to acquire the same for the purpose of 17 APIC Tirupati to establish economic zone and provide employment. The notice was issued to you in the 2nd cited: The DKT/ CJFS lease holder submitted explanation. It is stated therein that the land in Sy.No.144/2 admeasuring Ac. 2.72 cents was given in lieu of rehabilitation compensation for Sri Harikota evacuees, the said land does not belong to the Cooperation Joint Forming Society and the compensation sought to be paid by the Government treating it as Government by way of Rs.3,00,000/ - for wet land and Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for dry land is not acceptable. But they have not submitted any record. As per the records the land in Sy:No.144/2, admeasuring Ac. 2.40 cents as per the application patta No. 145/4/1401 it was allotted to Nimmala Sakkubayamma. Thereafter the application lands are brought under Thondur Cooperative Joint Forming Society limits. As explained by you it is not true to say that the said land belongs to Government. You became member of Thondur Cooperative Joint Forming Society by paying amount and obtained admission No.78. As you are members of the said society and interms of condition No. 17 of the patta, the above land is sought to be acquired for public purpose i.e. infavour of A.P.I.I.C. Tirupati for establishing economic zone and to provide employment (the application patta is converted into CJFS). The CUFS lease patta is cancelled and the Government passes an order to that effect. The compensation sought to be paid to this land admeasuring Ac.2.40cents is Rs.2,50,000/- per acre which comes to Rs.6,02,119/- along with the compensation to the trees and you can receive the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice. The Tahasildar Vardaiahpalem is requested to conduct panchanama and take possession on behalf of the Government by mutating the Government name and send this same to this office. Appeal against this order can be preferred to the Joint Collector within 30 days. Sd/-, Tirupati.” Chairmen, Thondur CJFS & Revenue Divisional Officer,

19. The resumption/patta cancellation order dated 23.09.2008 mentioned that the DKT/CJFS pattadars or legal heirs did not submit any 18 record to support that the land was given in lieu of rehabilitation compensation for Sri Harikota evacuees and that it did not belong to the CJFS. As per the records, the land in Sy.No.144/2, admeasuring Ac.2.40 cents as per the application patta No.145/4/1401 was allotted to Nimmala Sakkubayamma. Thereafter the application lands were brought under Thondur CJFS Limits. The said persons became member of the society by paying amount and obtained admission No.78 as per condition number 17 of patta, the above land was required for public purpose in favour of APIIC for establishing economic zone etc. So, patta was cancelled. W.P.No.26439 of 2008:

20. The writ petitioners filed W.P.No.26439 of 2008 being aggrieved from various proceedings in Rc.No.F/1326/07, dated 23.09.2008, by which while resuming the lands of the petitioners, they were informed that they would be paid compensation @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with compensation for the trees.

21. The prayer in W.P.No.26439 of 2008, was as follows: “...........the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring orders dated 23-9-2008 made in Rc.No. F/1326/2007 issued by the 2nd respondent in treating petitioners-land Situated in Sriharikota Colony, Thonduru, Tada Post, Varadaiahpalyam Mandal, Chittoor District belongs to Government and seeking to pay exgratia under the guise of cancelling the pattas without following the due procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, non-application of mind to the relevant facts, discriminatory, violative of the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 & 21 and constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the constitution of 19 India and consequently set-aside the same while directing the respondents not to disposses petitioners from their land and pass”

22. The Writ Petition No.26439 of 2008 was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.12.2008, providing that the compensation to the petitioners shall be determined in accordance with the L.A. Act and it shall be open to the writ petitioners to produce all necessary material by way of evidence for claiming compensation. The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to conduct enquiry and pass orders accordingly. The judgment reads as under: “Petitioners who are eighteen in number are aggrieved by as many proceedings Rc.No.F/1326/07, dated 25.09.2008, of the second respondent. By various such proceedings while resuming the lands of the petitioners for establishment of Special Economic Zone by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APTIC) - fourth respondent, petitioners were informed that they would be paid compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with compensation for trees. In view of the order proposed, it is not necessary to give elaborate factual background. The brief factual background may be noticed as follows. The petitioners originally hailed from the Villages surrounding Sriharikota, Nellore. In 1970, all the lands in these Villages were taken over by the Government of India for establishment of Rocket Launching Station (RLS). The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 02.11.1970, containing guidelines for rehabilitation package for the land oustees (displaced persons. An extent of Acs.2.00 wet land or Acs.5.00 dry land was provided as compensation. The land was situated in Tada area. Petitioners and others occupied the land. Some of them constructed houses. They developed the land in that area now known as "Sriharikota Colony". However, regular pattas were not granted. In 1991 an attempt was made by the revenue Officials to resume the land for alleged violation of conditions of grant. Ultimately, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration set aside cancellation orders. Thereafter, on 16.09.2000, Government issued a memo to the effect that the assignees/land oustees are entitled for the rights of alienation and enjoyment of land in their own way. In 20 furtherance thereof, pattas were given by the third respondent with absolute rights. In 2006, the land is sought to be acquired for Multi-Product Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be developed by APIIC under private public model. Notification under Section 4(1) as well as Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity, was published in November 2006. However, no notification was issued in respect of the lands claimed by the petitioners. They then approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending expropriatory measures, in vain. Public notices were issued to take possession, aggrieved by which, some of the affected persons filed W.P.No.561 of 2007 challenging public notice dated 28.12.2006. Having regard to the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition was disposed of on 17.07.2008 directing the respondents to determine the compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307, dated 23.11.1993., In obedience thereto, second respondent issued notice of resumption of the land and offered a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for wet land RS.2,50,000/- for dry land per acre. The petitioners submitted explanation along with documentary proof questioning the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and also the very genuineness of public purpose. The petitioners allege that without considering the explanations and documents filed by them, second respondent passed orders vide Rc.No.F/1326/07, dated 25.09.2008, purporting to resume the land and ordering payment of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for wet land as compensation. All the petitioners were given separate orders, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. At the stage of admission itself, fourth respondent (APIIC) and fifth respondent, who entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), filed the counter affidavits opposing the writ petition. They mainly contend that when the land of the petitioners is resumed for public purpose of SEZ on payment of adequate compensation, petitioners cannot have any grievance. They also oppose stay of developmental activities on the ground that some of land proposed the SEZ has already been taken over and developmental works have already been commenced involving huge expenditure. They contend that except the lands of the petitioners, which are situated in pockets in middle of the area handed over to fifth respondent, all land has been delivered to fifth respondent. They further contend that in 21 respect of the other lands belonging to other owners situated in Thondur Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal of Chittoor District, Award was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide Award No.A-13/2007, dated 30.06.2007, whereunder a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for dry inclusive of solatium, additional compensation and enhanced interest were ordered to be paid, and therefore, petitioners would also be entitled for the same. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Counsel for respondent No.5, this Court is of considered opinion that the controversy in this case is with regard to quantum of compensation to be paid to the assignees of Government land when the same is resumed for public purpose. Whether the State is liable to pay compensation, if so, what are the principles for determining such compensation, is a question, which is no more res integra. This aspect of the matter was considered in P.Mallaiah v Government of A.P., wherein this Court relied on the judgment of Larger Bench in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v. Mekala Pandu and disposed of similar contentions in the following manner. Whether the Government is bound to pay compensation to the assignees under the provisions of the Act where such assigned lands are resumed by the Government for public purpose? A Full Bench of five learned Judges of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v Bondapalli Sanyasi while overruling the earlier decision of Full Bench of three learned Judges in State of A.P. v P.Peda Chinnayya, held that when the land is resumed in terms of the grant, no compensation be payable towards resumption of land and compensation, however, is payable if the lands have not been resumed by following due process of law. The Full Bench of seven learned Judges in Mekala Pandu case (supra) on reconsideration of the issue did not accept the view of the Full Bench of five learned Judges in Bondapalli Sanyasi case (supra) and held that assignees of 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 by the State in accordance with the terms of the grant. It was also held that the conditions incorporated in patta/deed of 22 assignment shall not operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land...... In Mekala Pandu (Supra) the Larger Bench laid down as under. 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 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 case 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. (emphasis supplied) The Award No.A-13/2007, dated 30.06.2007, appears to be consent Award. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, even a consent Award has to be made considering the correct value at which a willing vendor has agreed to purchase from willing seller. In addition to such compensation, needless to mention, every landowner is entitled for solatium and additional compensation payable under the Act and also for additional interest of about 46% (as agreed by the Government in these cases), and all the benefits under the Act and benefits as already paid to other landowners. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that applying principle laid down by this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra), compensation to the petitioners should be determined in accordance with the Act. It shall be open to the petitioners to produce all necessary material by way of evidence for claiming compensation. Revenue Divisional Officer may conduct enquiry and pass orders accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

23. The judgment dated 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.26439 of 2008, makes it evident that basing on LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, 23 Domalaguda, Hyd v. Mekala Pandu1 it was held that 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 and any condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall not operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignees to claim full compensation as owner of the land. However, it is further evident that the petitioners were not held or declared as the owner of the land. But they were considered at par owners of the land for payment of compensation, though assignees, as per Mekala Pandu (supra). The proceedings of the resumption of the land dated 23.09.2008 were not set aside nor it was held that the land could not be resumed or ought to have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

24. The judgment in (W.P.No.561 of 2007) G.Meena v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 17.07.2008, had also proceeded on the ground that the petitioners were not the owners of the land. They were only assignees and based thereon it was held that the petitioners could not be denied the ex gratia as payable to the DKT patta holders in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993. The direction was issued to determine the compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to such direction, the order was passed on

23.09.2008 cancelling the lease and determining the compensation to be paid @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with compensation for the trees. The 1 2004(2) ALD 451 (LB) 24 petitioners were considered as DKT/CJFS lease holders. The compensation was determined in terms of G.O.Ms.NO.1307.

25. The petitioners did not challenge the judgment dated 17.07.2008 in W.P.No.561 of 2007 or the judgment dated 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.26439 of 2008. The respondents in the writ petition (writ appellants) also did not challenge those judgments, dated 17.07.2008 in W.P.No.561 of 2007 or/and dated 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.26439 of 2008.

26. The position that thus emerges is as under: i) that as per W.P.No.561 of 2007, the direction was given to grant compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 i.e., ex-gratia, applicable to assignment of land on resumption; ii) that as per W.P.No.26439 of 2008 the writ petitioners were held entitled to compensation at par the owners of the land under the L.A. Act, 1894. iii) The resumption order dated 23.09.2008 was not interfered with; iv) The orders were passed for grant of compenstaiton to the writ petitioners, as assignees of DKT pattas at par the owners of the land. In other words, for the purposes of grant of compensation to the assignees of the land, no distinction was made between the owners of the land whose were acquired and the writ petitioners, the assignees whose lands were resumed. v) The writ petitioners were never held the owners of the land. 25 vi) The aforesaid judgments dated 17.07.2008 & 15.12.2008 W.P.Nos.561/2007 and 26439/2008 attained finality as no party challenged he same.

27. After the judgment in W.P.No.26439 of 2008, the compensation was determined vide ROC.SEZ/881/2010 dated 21.07.2010, after notice to the petitioners. As per the proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati ordered for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for wet and dry lands respectively to the eligible assignees for their DKT lands. Those proceedings determined the amount of compensation, including trees value, observing that the value of the DKT lands were fixed on par with the patta lands inclusive of market value of the land, solatium, additional market value and percentage of enhancement agreed in Negotiation Committee. Proceedings dated 21.07.2010

28. Those proceedings ROC.SEZ/881/2010 dated 21.07.2010 read as under: “Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. Present: Sri A. Prasad, M.Sc., Roc.SEZ/881/2010 Dt.21-07-2010. Sub:- LAND - Chittoor District - Tirupati Division - Varadaiahpalem Mandal Thonduru village - lands in Sy.No.74/2 etc., resumed and alienated to APIIC - Sri Erakam Seshaiah and 17 others filed Writ Petition No.26439 of 2008 regarding payment of ex-gratia - Enquiry conducted - Orders - issued. Read:- 1. This office proceedings in Roc:F/1326/07 d1.25.09.2008.

2.Orders dated 15.12.2008 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in. WP No.26439 of 2008.

3. This office Notice in Roc. 881/2010 d1.01.04.2010. ORDER: 26 In the reference 1st read above orders have been issued resuming the land to an extent of Ac.50.39 situated in Thonduru village of Varadaiahpalem Mandal and the same was alienated to APIC for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park (SIZ). Aggrieved by the orders Sri Erakam Seshaiah and 17 others, residents of Sriharikota Colony, Thonduru village of Varadaiahpalem Mandal have filed Writ Petition No.26439 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same was disposed on 15.12.2008. While disposing the case the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows. The Award No.A-13/2007 dated 30.06.2007 of Thonduru village appears to be consent Award. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, even a consent Award has to be made considering the correct value at which a willing vendor has agreed to purchase the willing seller. In addition to such compensation, needless to mention every landowner is entitled for solarium and additional compensation payable under the Act and also for additional interest of about 46% (as agreed by the Government in these cases), and all the benefits under the Act and benefits as already paid to other landowners. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that applying principle laid down by this Court in Mekala Pandu (supra), compensation to the petitioners should be determined in accordance with the Act. It shall be open to the petitioners to produce all necessary material by way of evidence for claiming compensation. The Revenue Divisional Officer may conduct enquiry and pass orders accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The brief history of the case is as follows. The APIIC has placed requisition for acquisition of patta lands and alienation of DKT and Government lands in Satyavedu and Varadaiahpalem Mandals for establishment of Industrial Park (SEZ). Action has been initiated for acquisition of patta lands under Land Acquisition Act. The Draft Notification under Section 4(1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 have been made as envisaged under Land Acquisition Act. In order to fixation of market value of the land proposed for acquisition, the sales which taken place preceding three years of notification the true market value of the lands were not reflected. Moreover, consequent of the acquisition of the lands all the persons interested are compelled to change their place of occupation. Keeping in view of this, the sales were discarded. All the lands proposed for acquisition are fertile lands having high agricultural potentiality. The potentiality of the land can be determined keeping in view of the fertility of the land, availability of ground water, approach road facilities and its proximity to the 27 nearby town etc., The lands situated in Thonduru village are having all the said potentialities. However the local enquiry reveals that prevailing market value of the wet lands in the area is Rs 1,45,000/- per acre and dry lands is Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. But as verified from the sale statistics the true market value of the lands were not reflected and in consequence of the acquisition of the land, the land loosers are compelled to change their place of occupation. Considering the above facts, the market value is fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre for Dry land and Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre for Wet lands for the lands proposed for acquisition which is just and reasonable. The requisition department viz., the A.P.I.I.C Ltd., has filed a written consent in Form V as required under provision of A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992, to the District Collector, and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent award through the Negotiation Committee under Section 11(2) of the LA Act 1894. Hence Form I notices under the provisions of A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992, have been issued to all the land owners/ persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition. In response to the notice in Form I all the land owners/persons interested in the land have agreed for passing consent award and given consent in Form III (Agreement) and in Form IV (affidavit) to that effect. During the negotiations under the chairmanship of the District Collector, Chittoor held on 27.02.2007, the land owners have agreed for increase of 47.5% and 46.71% on the land value of wet lands and dry lands respectively and apart from tree value fixed for the trees. The details of the package are as follows. Land Value per acre for Wet lands Market value per acre as per PV Solatium @ 30% of the M V Addl. Market Value @ 12% per annum Total % Negotiation committee Rate per acre as per negotiations enhancement agreed Rs.1,45,000-00 Rs. 43,500-00 Rs. 17,400-00 Rs.2,05,900-00 47.5% Rs.3,00,000-00 Land Value per acre for Dry lands Market value per acre as per PV Solatium @ 30% of the M V Addl. Market Value @ 12% per annum Total % Negotiation committee Rate per acre as per negotiations enhancement agreed Rs.1,20,000-00 Rs. 36,000-00 Rs. 14,400-00 Rs.1,70,400-00 46.71% Rs.2,50,000-00 28 As such the market value of the lands were fixed per acre as follows towards acquisition of lands in respect of lands situated in Satyavedu and Varadaiahpalem Mandals. As per P.V Wet Dry As per Negotiations Dry Wet Rs.1,45,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.2,50,000-00 Basing on the above rates the awards have been passed in respect of following villages of Satyavedu and Varadiahpalem Mandals acquiring patta lands under Land Acquisition Act. Name of village Date of Award No.of Awards Appaiahpalem Aroor Gollavaripalem Mallavaripalem Chengambakam Cherivi Siddhma Agraharam Mopurupalle Thondur Total→

18.03.07

15.06.07

18.03.07

30.06.07 1 15 2 15 2 19 2 8 1 65 Extent for Award passed Consent Compulsory Total Extent

72.43 694.325 60.96 806.23 84.49 968.41

0.00 42.255 26.74 79.58 0.00 0.00

72.43 736.58 87.70 885.81 84.49 968.41

102.23

4.12

106.35

369.59 63.83 3222.495

0.00 0.00 152.695

369.59 63.83 3375.19 It has also further decided during District Level Negotiation Committee that ex-gratia for DKT lands will be paid on par with patta lands i.e. Rs.3.00 lakhs for Wet lands and Rs.2.50 lakhs for Dry lands inclusive all benefits derived under package deal. The value fixed in respect of DKT lands inclusive of all benefits i.e., Solatium, Addl. Market value and also percentage of enhancement agreed in Negotiation Committee. An extent of DKT lands Ac.2739.00 situated in the above villages were resumed and alienated of APIIC by paying exgratia of Rs.3.00 lakhs and 2.50 lakhs per acre for wet and dry lands respectively to the eligible assignees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assign.I) Department dated 23.12.1993. The lands in question are imperative and they were already resumed and alienated to APIIC to maintain contiguity with the lands acquired under Land Acquisition Act in and around of Thonduru village of Varadaiahpalem and Satyavedu Mandals. Sequel to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide reference 2nd read above, a notice has been issued to the petitioners vide reference 3rd above Sri Erakam Seshaiah, Sri B.Koteswaraiah, Sri Nimmala Chinnaiah, Sri B.Damodaram and Sri Mada Ravi have attended for enquiry on 08.04.2010 and given statement that they were not willing to give their assigned lands for SEZ 29 purpose and requested to withdraw from acquisition. As the land was already resumed and alienated to APIIC, it is hereby ordered to pay exgratia to the assignees/petitioners as follows: Sl. No.

1. 2.

4. 5. 6.

9. Survey No. And Sub Division No. Ext

2.72 3.04

2.48

2.36 2.67 2.05

2.37

2.40

2.40

10. 149/3B 11. 157/2

1.21 2.52

12. 73/2 13. 82/1A

14. 181/3 15. 85/3

2.68 1.00

2.41 2.40 Classification Name assignee Exgratia amount including Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry 6,88,317.00 11,85,295.00 8,35,734.00 10,87,556.00 8,40,210.00 6,20,000.00 5,95,965.00 Erakam Seshaiah Balajangam Koteswaraiah Balajangam Damodaram Erakam Jamuna Erakam Prakash Balajangam Chengamma Nimmala Chinnaiah Nimmala Sakkubayamma Pillari Narayanaswamy Reddy Erakam Murugan Nimmala Chengaiah Muthuku Balaiah Erakam Balasubramanyam V.Chinna Masthan 6,03,096.00 Nadikaram Chandramma 3,02,500.00 6,31,560.00 6,71,786.00 2,54,440.00 6,47,190.00 6,02,119.00 10,45,839.00 The Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem is instructed to draw and disburse the ex-gratia amount which was already deposited and available with the Tahsildar, Varadaiahpalem to the above assignees under proper acknowledgement. In the circumstances explained above the value of the DKT lands was fixed on par with patta lands inclusive of market value of the land, solatium, additional market value and percentage enhancement agreed in Negotiation Committee. Hence it is hereby ordered that an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.2.50 lakhs for Wet and Dry lands per acre respectively will be paid to the eligible assignees their DKT lands situated in Thonduru village of Varadaiahpalem Mandal which were already resumed and alienated to APIIC. This orders issued in compliance of Hon’ble High Court orders dated

15.12.2008 in W.P.No.26439 of 2008. //tcbo// Sd/-A.Prasad 30 Administrative Officer” Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupati. W.P.No.23208 of 2010:

29. Challenging the proceedings in ROC.SEZ/881/2010 dated

21.07.2010, W.P.No.23208 of 2010 was filed by the writ petitioners. The prayer made was as follows: “...issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order dated 21.7.2010 made in Roc.SEZ/881/2010, passed by the 3rd respondent, and the consequential action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from their land, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, if they wanted to acquire petitioners Land and not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land, till they follow the due procedure of law.”

30. In W.P.No.23208 of 2010 under challenge was only the order dated

21.07.2010, by which determination of the compensation was made in terms of the directions issued in W.P.No.26439 of 2008. The order of resumption vide ROC.F/1326/07 dated 26.07.2007 was not under challenge. It is so evident from the prayer of W.P.No.23208 of 2020 as reproduced above.

31. The order of resumption had been challenged in the previous W.P.No.26439 of 2008 but the same was not interfered with. The petitioners treated as assignees vide the judgment dated 15.12.2008 W.P.No.26439 of 2008 which was never challenged by the writ petitioners. 31

32. Writ Petition No.23208 of 2010 was allowed on 04.11.2013. The order of resumption and the proceedings dated 21.07.2010 were set aside. Further directions were issued to the respondents in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 (writ appellants) as follows: “i) a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act be issued within a period of four weeks from today. ii) Section 6 declaration be issued within a period of two weeks, thereafter. iii) As the petitioners have full notice and information of resumption and non-payment of compensation, notice under Section 9 be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of publication of Section 6 declaration, iv) Award determining the compensation payable to petitioners be passed in another two weeks thereafter. The 1st respondent ensures completion of the land acquisition proceedings as directed within the time stipulated above. Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

33. In W.P.No.23208 of 2010, learned Single Judge (as his lordship then was) observed that the Government memo No.9734 A/ASN II(3) 9 dated

16.09.2000, was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government to the Collector, Nellore District and directed to take necessary action in terms of the said memo which provided that the assignees (repatriates) were very much entitled for the rights of alienation of land assigned to them as per G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970. 32 Government Memo dated 16.09.2000:

34. Memo No. 9734A/Asn.II(3) 9 dated 16.09.2000 reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE DEPARTMENT Memo No: 9734A/Asn.II.(3)9 Dated: 16-9-2000 Sub: Land - Nellore District - Assigned lands - Assigned to Srihari Kota repatriates (evacuees) as per G.O.Ms. No: 1024 Ind. & Com. Dept. dated 2-11-1970 - Alienated to third parties - cancellation of pattas - Clarification - Sought for - Reg. Ref: 1. G.O.Ms. No: I024, Ind. & Com. Dept. dt. 2-11-1970.

2. From the CLR, Lr. No: Spl.B1/1100/89, dt. 2-11-1992

3. From the Collector, Nellore, Lr. No: B2/22222/91, Dt. 10-12-92.

4. Petition from Sri Maddineni Narasimha Rao, Dated 17-9-93.

5. Petition from Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, Dt. Nil. Government of India established a Rocket Launching Station at Sriharikota, Nellore District. At that time, the inhabitants of Sriharikota had been evicted and rehabilitated in other villages. In the G.O. first cited, orders were issued providing certain rehabilitative facilities and benefits to them.

2. Besides, the G.O. further provides that those displaced persons whose lands were acquired would also be granted Government land equivalent to the extent acquired from them free of cost for cultivation purposes subject to a maximum of Ac. 5-00 of dry land or Ac. 2-00 of wet land per family. The remaining lands in the rehabilitation area after meeting the above requirements would be assigned to landless poor persons among the displaced under the normal assignment policy. 3) The Collector, Nellore has that the lands were assigned to the displaced persons under "D' patta conditions only whose lands were acquired for the above project. Many of the original grantees to whom lands were assigned had sold away their lands to others. The assignees were issued resumption. orders under Section (2) (a) of POT (AL) Act and resumed the lands to Government.

4. Aggrieved by this Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy and some other persons approached the High Court of A.P. in this regard.

5. Meanwhile, the Collector, Nellore in his letter dated 23-10-1991 sought for a clarification, whether the assignees (Repatriates) as per G.O.Ms.No.1024, Ind. & Commerce Department dated 2-11-1970 are conferred with the right of alienation of land assigned to them. 33

6. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of W.Ps filed by V.Sudhakar Reddy and some of other purchasers in a common judgment dated 27-12-1996 directed the Government to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners after hearing the petitioner's counsel after giving notice to him. Till Government disposed of the representations, status quo obtaining as on today regarding possession was directed to be continued.

7. In pursuance of High Court directions, notices were issued to the petitioner's to appear before the Government for hearing whose representations were pending before the Government. The case came up for hearing on 26-8-2000. Heard the petitioners. The Revision petition is allowed.

8. After careful examination of the matter, the Government is of the opinion that assignees (repatriates) are very much entitled for the rights of alienation of land assigned to them as per G.O.Ms. No: 1024, Industries & Commerce Department dated 2-11-1970.

9. The Collector, Nellore is therefore, directed to issue regular pattas to the petitioners with all rights due therein.

10. The Collector, Nellore shall-take necessary action accordingly: PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.” A.V.S. REDDY;

35. As per the said memo dated 16.09.2000, Government of India established a Rocket Launching Station at Sriharikota, Nellore District. At that time, the inhabitants of Sriharikota had been evicted and rehabilitated in other villages. G.O.Ms.No.1024, Industries & Commerce department dated

02.11.1970 were issued providing certain rehabilitative facilities and benefits to them. It mentions that the assignees were issued resumption orders under Section (2)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and resumed the lands to Government. Against the resumption order some persons approached the High Court in writ petitions, and pending the writ petitions, the Collector Nellore vide letter dated 23.10.1991 sought for a clarification, whether the assignees (Repatriates) as per 34 G.O.Ms.No.1024 were conferred with the right of alienation of land assigned to them. In batch of said writ petitions, decided by common judgment dated

27.12.1996 the High Court had directed the Government to dispose of the representations of the writ petitioners after hearing them and after giving notice to them and till the disposal of the representation, it was directed that, the status-quo shall be maintained with respect to the possession as on that date. Notices were issued to the writ petitioners for hearing whose representations were pending. The hearing was conducted on 26.08.2000. The representations were allowed and the Government was of the opinion that assignees (repatriates) were very much entitled for the rights of alienation of land assigned to them as per G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated

02.11.1970. The Collector was directed to issue regular pattas to the petitioners with all rights due therein.

36. Considering the memo dated 16.09.2000, it was held by this Court in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 that the Government is the final authority in the matter which had accepted that the assignment in favour of repatriates was not subjected to the restrictions of D-form assignments. Once the power of alienation was given to the assignees and recognised by the Government, the respondents were not well within their jurisdiction to treat the assignment in favour of petitioners as D-Form assignment and offer to pay exgratia. It was for the Government to decide the right and nature of assignment under G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970. The Government decided the issue in favour of repatriates. The decision of the Government was binding. If proper and applicable import was given to the conceded right of alienation in favour 35 of assignees/repatriates, the position of the petitioners would be that of the owners who could independently deal with their property and not assignees with restricted right. It was then further observed that the respondent No.3 committed serious illegality by holding that for the purpose of maintaining contiguity with the lands acquired under the acquisition proceedings, the land belonging to the petitioners were imminently required and the lands were resumed and the petitioners were entitled for exgratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1990. The resumption was effected through an executive order and not in accordance with law. Placing reliance in M/s.Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2 it was held that the ‘law’ in the context of Article 300A of the Constitution of India must mean an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule, or a statutory order, having the force of law, that is positive or State-made law. The exgratia referred in G.O.Ms.No.1307 did not satisfy the requirements of law under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

37. Further, referring to the judgment dated 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.26439 of 2008 in which it was declared that the compensation to the petitioners should be determined in accordance with the Act, it was held in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 that the proceedings impugned in W.P.No.23208 of 2010 did not satisfy such direction of this Court to pay compensation in accordance with the Act between the parties as in the earlier round of 2 AIR 1982 SC 32 36 litigation. It was further observed that the Order in W.P.No.26439 of 2008 had become final and wrongly applied to singular fact situation.

38. The relevant part from the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2013 reads as under: “The Government, considering the hardship and disturbance to normal living conditions of displaced persons due to establishment of research and development space centre and also to avoid litigation or hardship to the repatriates, provided comprehensive package in the form of cash benefit and grant of agricultural land for cultivation. There is nothing on record to show that the grant is under the Darkasth Rules. The respondents failed to prove their stand that these are D-Form assignments. On the other hand; the Government through its Memo dated 16.9.2000 after careful examination of the matter decided that the assignees (repatriates) are very much entitled for the rights of alienation of assigned land as per G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 2.11.1970. The Government which is the final authority in the matter has accepted that the assignment in favour of repatriates is not subjected to the restrictions of D-Form assignments. Once the power of alienation is given to the assignees and recognised by the Government, the respondents are not well within their jurisdiction to treat the assignment in favour of petitioners as D-Form assignment and offer to pay ex gratia. It is for the Government to decide the right and nature of assignment under G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970. In the instant case, much earlier to any controversy cropping up, the Government decided the issue in favour of repatriates. The decision of the Government is binding on the respondents. If proper and applicable import is given to the conceded right of alienation in favour of assignees/ repatriates, the position of the petitioners will be that of owners who can independently deal with their property and not assignees with restricted right. The 3rd respondent has committed serious illegality by holding that for the purpose of maintaining contiguity with the lands acquired under the acquisition proceedings, the land belonging to the petitioners are imminently required and the lands were resumed and the petitioners are entitled for ex gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 dated 23.12,1990. The resumption is effected through an executive order and not in accordance with law. In M/s. BISHAMBAR DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN ETC. V. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS {AIR 1982 SC 32}, the Apex Court held that : 37 "The State Government cannot while taking recourse to the executive power of the State under Art. 162, deprive a person of his property. Such power can be exercised only by authority of law and not by a mere executive fiat or order. Art. 162, as is clear from the opening words, is subject to other provisions of the Constitution. It is therefore, necessarily subject to Art.300A. The word "law" in the context of Art.300A, must mean an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule, or a statutory order, having the force of law, that is positive or State-made law. The effect of the Constitution (Fourth) Amendment Act, 1955, is that there, can be no "deprivation" unless there is extinction of the right to property. (Obiter)." From the above, it is clear that the law means an act of Parliament or of a State legislature, Rule or a statutory order having the force of law i.e., positive or State made law. The ex gratia referred to in G.O.Ms. No. 1307 does not satisfy the requirements of law under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further, this Court while disposing of W.P. No.26439 of 2008 categorically declared that compensation to the petitioners should be determined in accordance with the Act. The order impugned in the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination, can be held to be satisfying the direction of this Court between the parties in earlier round of litigation. The order in writ Petition No.26439 of 2008 had become final and wrongly applied to the singular fact situation.”

39. W.P.No.23208 of 2010 was thus allowed vide judgment dated

04.11.2013 and the order of resumption vide Rc.No.F/1326/07 dated

23.09.2008 was also set aside, with the directions to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act. II. Submissions of the learned counsels: i) For Appellants:

40. Learned senior counsel Sri K. S. Murtthy for the appellant with Sri D.Prakasam Reddy, submitted that three successive writ petitions were filed asking for declaration regarding the status of the writ petitioners in the land, 38 which were decided giving only the relief of monitory compensation. The 4th writ petition (W.P.No.23208 of 2010) was filed challenging the order of Revenue Divisional Officer fixing the compensation vide order dated

21.07.2010. In all the aforesaid three Writ Petition Nos. 561 of 2007, 18226 of 2007 and 26439 of 2008 which were filed by the same petitioners and decided by the Co-ordinate Benches the judgments proceeded treating the writ petitioners as the assignees of the government land. However, the fourth Writ Petition No.23208 of 2010 was decided declaring the status of the land as equivalent to patta lands relying upon the memo issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government dated 16.09.2000 by which the Collector was directed to issue regular pattas. He submitted that the memo dated 16.09.2000 is administrative in nature and it does not have any statutory force or backing. The assignment was done as per the statutory G.O.Ms.No1142 dated 18.06.1954 which was issued for the first time regarding the assigned lands and the status of the assigned lands. The GOs regarding assignment lands were issued from time to time and that G.O.Ms.No.1024, stated that the displaced families would be granted land for cultivation purpose. The Government Memo could not override or overrule the Government Order, which is statutory in nature issued in the name of the Governor. He relied in the case of K.V.Ramana Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh {2001 (4) ALD 852} to contend that the memo cannot and does not have an overriding effect over the Government Order. The G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970, speaks about rehabilitation facilities and not about alienation rights. The writ petitioners 39 had accepted that status of assignee in the year 1970 and could not re- agitate the issue in the fourth writ petition. The impugned order could not be passed in view of the judgments of co-ordinate benches in the previous writ petitions, and that too based on the Government Memo. He also placed reliance in Shahbna Abdulla v. Union of India {2024 INSC 612} to contend that the view taken in the impugned judgment, contrary to the judgments of Co-ordinate Benches between the same parties could not be legally passed.

41. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgments placed reliance in the impugned judgment were inapplicable. In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation {AIR 2013 SC 565} notification under Section 4(1) of the LA act was issued and the possession was taken but without compensation. In M/s.Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan etc., v. State of U.P {AIR 1982 SC 32} the goods were seized under the Essential Commodities Act. In the present case the assigned lands were resumed as per GOMs. paying the compensation as per the Government Order. In S.R.Ejaz v. T.N.Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Limited {(2002) 3 SCC 137} it was held that on expiry of lease the tenant cannot be dispossessed forcibly. The said judgment was not applicable as in the present case the assigned lands were resumed on payment of compensation at par the patta holders by the revenue department and for the same reason, he submitted that the decisions in State of UP v. Manohar {(2005) 2 SCC 126}, in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar etc. v. State of Gujarat {AIR 1945 SC 142} and DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Eductional Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana {(2003) 5 SCC 40 622} were also inapplicable to the present case as the land here was resumed by the Government, which resumption order was valid.

42. Sri K. S.Murthy, learned senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that all the lands mentioned in respect of the petitioners were resumed by the Government and alienated to APIIC and were purchased by Sri City from APIIC, which is in possession thereof. A school is being run by Chinmaya Mission, Hospital by Sankar Netralaya, Heliport with three helipads, Central Expressway, Melon Avenue, Commercial Avenue and 5th street are already established in parts of the subject lands.

43. A chart to the following affect with respect to all the thirty original writ petitioners has been filed mentioning as to which writ petitioners were given land to land and had filed the pattadar passbook, also mentioning which writ petitioners did not file the pass book and also mentioning with respect to the writ petitioners who filed the pass book without any evidence in the revenue records, the same is reproduced as under:. WRIT PETITION - 23208 OF 2010 FILED BY SAKKUBAYAMMA AND 29 OTHERS OF THONDUR VILLAGE OF VARADAIAHPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT Sl. No. Name / Father Names of the Petitioners as per WP 1

2. N. Sakkubayamma W/o Munaswamy Sy no: 144/2 Extent: 2.72 G. Meena W/o Thyagarajan Sy no: 123/2 Extent: 2.47 Pattadh Pass Book (Yes or No) Yes Yes Name Enjoyer as per Govt., Counter Affidavit N. Sakkubayamma W/o Munaswamy G.Meena W/o. Thyagarajan 2. K. Sampath S/o. jayarami Reddy Remarks in Passbook Remarks Passbok filed, but no entry about Land to Land Land 41 3 Sk. Govindaiah S/o Gurunadha Reddy No SK Govindaiah S/o. Gurunadha Reddy No passbook As per Govt's Counter Affidavit, Pujari Kamalamma Pattadar 4 5 6

8. 9 Yes Yes Yes Nadikara Mohan S/o Ranga Reddy Sy no: 125/2, 85/3 Extent: 2.35, 2.45 D. Saradamma W/o Ramadasu Sy no: 111/3 Extent : 2.3 Nadikara Ranga Reddy S/o Ramaswamy Reddy Sy no: 126/2 Extent: 2.65

1. N. Mallika Yes W/o Jayaram Reddy Sy no : 125/3 Extent: 2.37 N. Chandramma W/o Ranga Reddy C. Balaiah S/o Kuchelu Naidu 10 Balajangam Koteswaraiah S/o Ramaiah Sy no : 74/2 Extent: 3.04 11 Balajangam Damodharam S/o Govinda Swamy Sy no : 79/1 Extent: 2.48 No No Yes Yes Land given (memo) M. Sasi W/o. Mohan, D.in- law of Ranga Reddy (Sy 125/2) Kuppi Reddy Dora S/o. Kuppi Reddy (Sy no 85/3) M. Murugeshan S/o. Gangadharam Land Land Nadikara Ranga Reddy's isnt mentioned either pattadar enjoyer Govt's counter Nataru Mallika W/o. Reddy Jarraiah Land passbook passbook No No Land Kolavi Boopathamma @Pupathi S/o. Dhasaradan Balajangam Koteswaraiah S/o Ramaiah Balajangam Damodharam S/o Swamy Govindu Land 12 Erakam Seshaiah Yes S/o. Muthyala Naidu Sy no : 77/2 Extent: 2.72 Erakam Seshaiah S/o Muthyala Naidu Land 13 Erakam Murugan Yes Erakam Murugan Land 42 S/o Seshaiah Land given (Memo) Erakam Jamunamma W/o Seshaiah Erakam Prakash So Naidu Muthyala Land B. Rajendra S/o Nayanappa Reddy Land given (Memo) S/o Seshaiah Sy no : 149/3B Extent: 1.21 14 Erakam Jamunamma W/o Seshaiah Sy no : 78/1 Extent: 2.36 Yes 15 Erakam Prakash So Muthyala Naidu Sy no : 77/1 Extent: 2.67 16 B. Rajendra Nayanappa S/o Reddy Sy no: 157/2 Extent: 2.52 Yes Yes 17 B. Chandraiah Yes S/o Angappa Reddy Sy no: 181/3 Extent: 2.42 B. Chandraiah S/o. Ayyakannu Reddy Land to land 18 Nimmala Yes Venkatamma W/o Chinnaiah Sy no: 157/3 Extent: 2.37 Nimmala Venkatamma W/o Chinnaiah Land given (Memo) Pattadar Passbook Filed as Exibit B2 by DW1 15.09.2016 OS No. 21 of 2013 Court of Senior Civil Judge, Satyavedu As Passbook, name of Petitioners father Ayyakannu Reddy Passbook shows the name Nimmala Venkatamma. Title Nimmala Chinnaiah 19 B. Chandraiah S/o. Challappa Reddy 20 A. Sarojamma W/o Ramaiah 21 N. Seenaiah S/o Peeraiah No No No B. Chandraiah S/o. Challappa Reddy A. Sarojamma W/o Ramaiah No passbook No passbook N. Seenaiah S/o Peeraiah No passbook 22 K. Parvathamma Parvathamma Land land Though 43 W/o Chandraiah sy no : 118/3B Extent: 1.00 Yes W/o Chandraiah given (Memo) 23 SMS Ameed Saheb No S/o Deva Shareeb Saheb Machi Meera Saheb So Shaik Dawwod Saheb No M. Bibi W/o Moiddin Saheb NO Yes Yes Balajangam Chengamma W/o Krishnaiah Sy no : 78/2 Extent: 2.05 P. Munaswamy Reddy S/o Narayanaswamy Reddy Sy no : 176/3 Extent: 2.4 Ameed SMS Saheb S/o Deva Shareeb Saheb Meera Machi Saheb So Shaik Dawwo Saheb No Passbook No Passbook Pudi Angamma W/o. Reddy Jayarami No Passbook Balajangam Chengamma W/o Krishnaiah Land (Memo) Land P. Munaswamy Reddy S/o Narayanaswamy Reddy Passbook was issued Nimmala Chengaiah, was struck off and the name of K.Parvathamma mentioned LT Parvathamma. It should contain LT N.Chengaiah Pattadar passbook shows Narayana swamy Reddy S/o. Munaswamy Reddy Pattadar. K. Chandraiah So Challappa Reddy Sy no: 154/2 Extent: 2.84 29 K. Ramamurthy Yes S/o Rajavelu Reddy Sy no: 40/1 Extent: 2.57 K. Chandraiah S/o Reddy Challappa Land

1.K. Parvathamma W/o. Chandra Reddy Ext.Ac.1.28 2. K. Ramamurthy S/o. Rajavelu Reddy Ext.Acs. 1.29 Land As per Govt's Counter Kalangi Chinna Ponnu W/o Marimuthu is the Pattadar 44 30 E. Balasubramanyam Yes Munaswamy S/o. Naidu Sy no : 82/1 Extent: 2.25 E. Balasubramanya m S/o. Munaswamy Naidu Land As per Govt's Counter affidavit, having Ac.0.55 cents in Sy No.82/1A

44. Learned counsel further submitted that even if it be taken that some of the writ petitioners were issued pattadar pass books stating that the land was given in lieu of the land acquired at Sriharikota such endorsement was available only for 20 persons and out of those only the names of 10 persons were in the revenue records and there were no entry in the revenue records except mysteriously issued pattadar pass books for remaining 10 petitioners and they had not produced any documentary evidence to show their entitlement on the subject lands.

45. A chart mentioning which writ petitioner was involved in the previous writ petitions has also been submitted which is as follows: Sl.No. Name of the Writ Petitioner Involved in Other W.P Nos R-1 R-12 - - 1

6. N. Sakkubayamma w/o. Munaswamy - G.Meena Tyagarajan W/o R-2 Govindaiah SK W/o Gurunadha Reddy R-3 Nadikara Mohan S/o Ranga Reddy R-4 D.Saradamma Wo Ramadasu R-5 Nadikara Ranga Reddy S/o Ramaswamy R-6 45 Reddy N.Mallika Jayaram Reddy W/o R-7 Nadikara Chandramma Wo Ranga Reddy R-8 M.C Balaiah S/o Late Mutuku Kuchelu Naidu R-12 (C.Kuchelunaidu) R-12 Balajangam Koteswaraiah S/o Ramaiah R-18 Balajangam Damodaram S/o Govinduswamy R-19 Erakam Sesaiah S/o Muthyala Naidu R-20 Erakam Murugan S/o Seshaiah R-21 Erakam Jamunamma W/o Seshaiah R-22 Erakam Prakash S/o Muthyala Naidu R-23 B.Rajendra Nayanappa Reddy S/o R-27 B.Chandraiah S/o Angappa Reddy R-28? S/o. Ayyakannureddy R-29 R-31 N.Venkatamma W/o Chinna B.Chandraiah S/o Chellappa Reddy Sarojamma A. W/o Ramaiah R-2 R-3 - R-1 R-10 R-4 R-5 R-11 R-14 R-7

13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 46 N.Seenaiah S/o Peeraiah - K.Parvathamma W/o Chandraiah R-37 - Ameed Shareeb S.M.S Saheb S/o Deva Saheb Machi Saheb S/o Shaik Saheb Meera davood R-38 M.Beebi Moddin Saheb W/o R-39 Balajangam Chengamma W/o Krishnaiah R-41 P.Munaswamy Reddy S/o Narayanaswamy - K.Chandraiah S/o Reddy Challappa K.Ramurthy S/o Rajavelu Reddy E. Balasubramanyam S/o Munaswamy Naidu 23 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 R-18 R-17 R-16 R-6 - R-9 R-13 R-11 R-10 R-7

46. Finally, learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in resuming the land by the Government and further submitted that the payment of compensation in terms of the directions issued in the previous writ petitions shall be given to the writ petitioners, if not already paid, and if 47 there is some deficiency that is if some part remains to be paid pursuant to the direction, but the impugned order cannot be sustained holding the assignees as the owners of the land, based on the Government Memo and consequently the direction to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, initiating the acquisition proceedings as per the directions given in the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2013 cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment dated 04.11.2013 deserves to be set aside.

47. Learned counsel for the appellant - APIIC in Writ Appeal No.259 of 2014 submitted that based on the orders passed in W.P.Nos.561 of 2007 and W.P.No.18226 of 2007 the compensation were determined as per the rate fixed in G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 and further determination was made as per the LA Act, 1894 granting an amount towards 30% of Solatium, Additional Market value @ 12% per annum and the enhancement agreed by negotiation committee @ 47.5%, pursuant to the directions in W.P.No.26439 of 2008. Consequently, therebeing resumption of land which was assigned to the writ petitioners and which resumption is valid and the compensation also having been determined and paid the writ petitioners/deposited with the authorities, in terms of the orders passed in the previous writ petitions the direction issued in the impugned judgment to initiate the proceedings for acquisition under the LA Act and as per the direction issued, are illegal. There is no need nor a legal requirement to issue acquisition notification. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary {(2024) 3 SCC 224}. 48

48. Learned counsel submitted that out of 30 petitioners except Petitioner No. 28, others are either parties in W.P.No.561 of 2007 or in W.P.18226 of 2007 or in W.P.No.26439 of 2008 and some petitioners are parties in both the writ petitioners. He submitted that G.O.Ms.No.1024 provides for giving lands to two categories of people 1) persons who lost land and 2) persons who were displaced from the villages. He submitted that all the petitioners were displaced persons and not the land owners and were given the lands in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1024. So the assignment of land to them was as assignees of land without the right of alienation and consequently the alienation right could not be conferred by the Principal Secretary vide memo dated 16.09.2000, which memo could not override the Government order issued in the name of Governor. He referred to P.Tejaswari.v. State of AP {MANU/AP/0432/2024}. He submitted further that even under the memo the writ petitioners were not given any regular pattas by Collector with all the rights and finally.

49. He submitted further that the compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.1307 and the judgment of the full bench in Mekala Pandu (supra) was given to the writ petitioners, the assignees of the land, which has been deposited under the revenue deposit. There is no need for the acquisition and no compensation is to be paid under the new Act, 2013. He referred to Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain {(2023) 8 SCC 700}.

50. Learned counsel for the State adopted the submissions of the learned counsels for the appellants. ii) For respondents/writ petitioners: 49

51. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) submitted that the land was given to the writ petitioners in lieu of their land acquired in SHAR. G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970 was issued. Subsequently to clarify that the writ petitioners had the right to alienation, Government memo dated 16.09.2000 was issued. They submitted that the writ petitioners had the right of alienation and consequently, the order of resumption could not be passed. The Pattadar Pass book and the title deeds were issued. So, in case of any requirement of the land for any public purpose, it can only be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The same was not done there was violation of the writ petitioners right not to be deprived of their property same by authority of law. In their submission, the authority of law is the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsels further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

52. With respect to the previous writ petitioners filed by the same petitioners which were decided treating the writ petitioners as the assignees of the land but allowing the compensation at par the land owners. In view of Mekala Pandu (supra) learned counsels for the writ petitioners submitted that after the order was passed calculating the compensation in terms of the judgment passed in the previous writ petitions, passing of the order determining the compensation gave a fresh cause of action to the writ petitioners and consequently they could file the fourth writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2010 and the previous judgment would 50 not come in the way of the writ petitioners. They supported the main judgment.

53. They also filed memo dated 17.06.2025 bringing on record the additional material papers termed as photocopy of the title deeds of some of the writ petitioners along with the copy of pattadar pass books.

54. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) also filed a memo on their behalf submitting that some of the persons in Sriharikota colony, whose lands were also resumed, had approached the Joint Collector in revision and thereupon approached the Commissioner of Appeals in the office of Chief Commissioner, which allowed the appeal dated 20.06.2019 holding that the lands assigned to the displaced persons to SHAR project, Sriharikota were entitled for alienable rights on par with private patta lands and in the event of requirement of subject land and for any public purpose they were entitled for compensation under the provisions of right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

55. Learned counsels for the appellants placed reliance in the following judgments: 1) Rohan Vijay Nahar v. The State of Maharashtra3 2) K. V. Ramana Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh4 3) P. Tejeswari v. The State of AP5 3 4 5 (2026) 2 SCC 182 2001 SCC OnLine AP 462 2024 SCC OnLine AP 762 51 4) Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divnl Officer, Chevella Divn. V. Mekala Pandu6 5) Yadaiah v. State of Telangana7

56. Learned counsel the respondents/writ petitioners placed reliance in the following judgments: 1) Narendrajit Singh V. State of U.P.8 2) Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh9 3) Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh10 4) Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh11 5) A.P.State Electricity Board Employees Union v. Joint Collector, Chittoor12

57. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

58. From perusal of the impugned judgment in writ appeals it is evident that this Court proceeded on the basis that the writ petitioners became the land owners and were no more assignees, in view of the Government Memo dated 16.09.2000 They were assigned the lands under G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970 but when the same was read along with the Government memo dated 16.09.2000, the Government treated them as owners of the 6 7 9 8