The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A.Declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in not paying fair and just compensation to the Petitioners on par with private patta holders after forcibly acquiring the Petitioners assigned lands in Sy.No.16 in Bardipur&Sy.No.54,125,1O1 in Yelgoi villages,Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District, for public purpose, in Contravention of the procedure laid down in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, (Act No.30 oI 2013), and as illegql, unconstitutional, null and void, and arbitrary, and,B. Declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in discriminating against the Petitioners assigned lands by not paying them compensation on par with the private Patta lands as discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19,21, and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, and C. Consequently directing the Respondent authorities to strictly follow the procedure laid down by law and also under Act No.30 of 2013' with respect to the assigned lands of the Petitioners acquired by the Respondents authorities for public purpose, and pay the Petitioners the differential amount with accrued interest on par with private Patta holders in their respective villages. I lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to pay to the Petitioners the differential amount payable to the Petitioners with accrued interest on par with the private patta holders, disposal of the main WP. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SANKALP PISSAY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to7: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION counsel for the Respondents No.8 : SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDOY, SC FOR TSIIC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PET I-l'lON No.34477 of 2024 ORDEII: Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalfofrespondent Nos. I to 7 and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.S, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shom of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in briefis that the respondent authorities have resumed the lands for which they have been issued with assignment pattas without paying ex-grafia amount equivalent to the c-ompensation amount paid to the other private patta holders. I

3. Petitioners further contend that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this .( Court dated 26-ll-2024 passed in W.P.Nos.250l6 and 28644 of 2024, wherein this Court had held that the petitioners therein 2 who are also assignment patta holders and whose lands are resumed by the respondent authorities, are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount as paid to the land acquired from the pafta holders along with accrued interest aller deducting the amount of ex-gratia amount already received by the petitioners in the year 2016.

4. The aforesaid submission made is not disputed by the leamed Assistant Government pleader attached to the office of the leamed Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

5. In view of the same, since the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court, in order to maintain parity and for the reasons alike, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shalt stand closed. No order as to costs. \ \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I IIS tit:lp_ql 9gcietary, Re_venue Depjrrtment (LA and JA), Secretariat, State or tetangana, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The chief commissioner_of Land Administration And the chairperson, State Level RandR Monitoring Committee rvampatty Staiion Rd;, Hfi;;;ij;j. "* S. Inp Commissioner, Rehabilitation And Resetilement Government of Telangana Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad. -'-

4. The District Collector, Sangareddy District Sangareddy. 5. The Joint collector And Administrator, Rehabilitation And Resetflement Sangareddy.

6. The Rerrcnue Divisional Officer, Zaheerabad Division Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District. j I / a I ( \

7. The Mandal Tahsildar, Jharasangam Mandal Sangareddy District' 8. The V.C. and M.D, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation - t-imiteO (TSllDC), irarishr-am Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad'

9. One CC to SRI SANKALP PISSAY' Advocate. [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Courtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 1 1 . One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSllC. [OPUCI

12.Two CD CoPies. (Along with a copy of the Order, dated 26-11'2024 in W.P.Nos'25016 & 28644 of 2024 to this Order) }.BSK ^bB \ HIGH COURT DATED:0 6101t2O2S ( ORDER gE sTArg Cr1 1 JN ?$6 1 :l '.J+ I ( l 32 WP.No.344tT ot 2024 t .:,,- -, ' . DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l 0 ,{ THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. 25016 a nd.28644 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: Since, the lis involved in these Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, learned Assistant Government pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 to B in Wp.No.25O16 of 2024 and respondents No. 1 to 7 in W.p.No.28644 of 2024, and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in W.p.No.25016 of 2024 and for respondent No.g in W.p.No.2g644 of 2024, and perused the record.

3. Shorn of unnecessar5r details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were granted assignment pattas by the respondents-authorities as part of welfare measure; that the respondents_authorities claiming that 2 the said assigned lands are required for setting up of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) for public purposes, have resumed the aforesaid assignment pattas granted in their favour; that the authorities while resuming the aforesaid land had paid ex-gratia amount in a sum @ Rs.4,OO,OO0/- per acre in respect of lands under cultivation and (l Rs.3,25,000/- per acre in respect of fallow lands; that the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- per acre in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders; and that the said action of the respondents-authorities 1S clearly discrimination and contrary to the law laid by this Court in Land. Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Cheuella Ditision, Egderabad and others as. Mekala Pandu and. othersr.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that larger bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu's case (l supra) had held that even assignment patta holders are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount at the same rate as ' zoor(z) aLr sao (r.s.) 3 paid to the patta holders, ald that since, the respondents- authorities have not paid the ex-gratia amount on par with the patta holders, the authorities are to be directed to pay the difference of amount to the petitioners in respect of the Iands resumed from them.

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, counsel for petitioners had also relied on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court dt.03.O1.2023 in W.A.No.677 of 2O22, and a recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dt.O6.O6.2O24 in W.P. Nos .25832 of 20 1 8 & 3 1482 of 2023.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the Ofhce of the learned Advocate Genera-l contends that the petitioners are assignment patta holders; that on the authorities initiating resumption proceedings, have participated in the said proceedings and agreed to receive the ex-gratia amount in a sum of Rs.4,OO,OOO/- per acre and Rs.3,25,OOO /- p.r acre in respect of lands under cultivation and fallow lands, respectively; and that the I rL. 4 petitioners have also received the amounts during the year 2016 itself.

7. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents . that as the decision of this Court in Mekala. pandub case (1 supra) was holding the Iield even on the date when the resumption proceedings were initiated by the respondents, it is not open for the petitioners to contend of becoming aware of the decision now, after lapse of eight years, to approach this Court claiming pa5rment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid in respect of lands acquired from the patta holders.

8. Learned Assistant Government pleader furttrer submits that since, the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of eight years, even if this Court were to hold the petitioners are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with private patta holders, they are not entitled for pa1rment of interest on the difference of amount payable to the petitioners.

9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. / 5

10. This Court in a recent decision in W.p.Nos.25g32 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023, while rejecting the challenge to the resumption proceedings, however taking note of the decision of the larger. bench of this Court in MekaLa. Pandu's case (1 suprp.) held that the petitioners therein, who are assignment patta holders, are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with patta holders in their respective villages @ Rs.5,65,000/- per acre, and that the respondents-authorities have to pay the differential amount to the petitioners therein. 1 1. This Court in the aforesaid decision, apart from holding that the petitioners therein who are assignment, patta holders are entitled to receive ex_gratia on par with private patta holders of the respective villages, also directed the respondents to pay the differential amount with accrued interest by excluding the amount received by the petitioner in respect of their lands situated in their respective villages, which were procured/acquired for the pulpose of setting up of NIMZ, Zal:reerabad,, within a period 't -:& 6 of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

12. Petitioners being assignment patta holders artd their lands, having been resumed by the respondents- authorities in the yea:. 2016, which period of time is in close proximity to the period of 9th respondent requisitioning the lands for the purpose of setting up of NIMZ, would squarely be covered by the aforesaid decision.

13. As the fact of the respondents-authorities paying a sum of Rs.5,65,OOO f - per acre, irrespective of the nature of land, in respect of the lands acquired from the patta holders is not in dispute and a-lso the order of this Court, dt.O6.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2O18 & 31482 of 2023, having attained finality, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities cannot adopt a different yardstick while dealing with the case of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the respondents-authorities that the difference in rate fixed per acre is depending on the nature of land, is not brone out from the reading of the above 7 judgment and accordingly the contention in this regard is rejected. 14' Though on behalf of the respondents it is further contended that the petitioners having received the ex_gratia amount in the year 2016 are not entitled to lile the present writ petition after a delay of g years and on account of delay and latches the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief, it is to be noted that while acquiring the lands, a duty is cast on the respondents_authorities to pay the compensation/ex-gratia as per the law. since the decision of this Court in Mekala pandu\ case (1 supr4 was holding the field from the year 2OO4, the respondents_ authorities cannot plead igrrorance of the said decision while making payment of ex_gratia amount at a different rate from that of the amount paid to the patta holders. 15. The respondents_authorities having tailed to implement and enforce the law laid dovm by this Court, are precluded fro-m taking the plea of delay and latches in seeking to deny the pa5rment of ex-gratia amount to the l i l I ) 8 petitioners on par with patta holders on the ground of delay and latches.

76. This Court in W.P.No.86O3 of 2024, dt.L9.tt.2o24, while rejecting a similar contention urged on behalf of respondents, had relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Vidga Deoi a. Th.e State of Himochal Prad.eshz, wherein it was observed as under: "1O.7 The contention aduanced bg the State of delay and latches of tle Appellant in mouing th.e Court is also liable to be rejected. Delag and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if tle circum-stances sLack tlw judiciat consci.ence of the Court. Condonation of delag is a matter of judicial discretion, uhich mast be exercised judicioustg and. reasonablg in the facts and. circumstances of a case. It uill depend upon the breach of fundamental ights, and the remedg claimed, and ulhen and Lnut tle delag arose. Tl-ere is no period of limitation prescibed for ttrc courts to exercise their constihttional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. ' lzozoy z scc ses 9

12. Ttte State has submitted that tn 2OOg it lnd rruhated acqubition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land owner uiz. Shn Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction q.uen bg the High Court in C.W.P.No.1192 of 2OO4. The State initiated acqui.sition onlg ii the case where d.irections tuere issued bg th.e High Cgurt, and. not in tle case of other land owners whase land.s utere compukorilg taken ouer, for th.e so;.ne pufpose, and. at thc sam.e time. As a conseqftence, the present land. ou.tner has been diuen to moue the Court in their indiuidual cases for redressal."

17. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.677 of 2022 (speaking through tle Hon,ble The Chief Justice, Sri ujjal Bhuganm as His Lord.ships then utas)took note of the decision of this Court in Special Deputy Collector and. Land. Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddg District a. B'Narayan sutamge examined the impact of the raw laid down by the larger bench of this Court in Mekala pandu\ case (l supra) with regard to the claim of compensation by assignees of Government land and held that assignees of t zozzlsy err zoz 1o1 1rs1 l I 1J 10 I government land are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits at par with the owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands were taken possession of by the . State in accordance w'ith the terms of the grant and notwithstanding the fact that such said resumption is for public purposes. Hence, the legal position is that assignees of government land are entifled to compensation on par with patta-holders.

18. Thus, the petitioners herein, who are assignment patta holders, are also entitled to pa5rment of ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to patta-holders. L9. Insofar as the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, as noted herein above, the Apex Court in Vidga Deui's case(2 supra) had considered the aspect of delay and latches holding that condonation of delay is the judicial discretion -=* .---.4 11 of the Court, more particularly, when it deals with depriving a citizen of his constitutional right. 20' Though on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kantqtaka Pouter Corpn. Ltd. through its chairmaa & Managing Director & Another v. K.Thangappan and Anotheta and S.S.Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Otherss in support of their contention that delay defeats equity, it is to be noted that the said decisions deal are in relation to service law and it does not relate to land acquisition matters.

21. On the other hand having regard to the law laid down by the Honble supreme Court in Vidga Dedb case(2 supra) on the aspect of delay and latches, when it comes to breach of fundamental rights and constitutional rights, which principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court again in Salch Dutt Ratrq & Another a. State of Himachat o (zooe) + scc:zz ' 1zoos:, z scc tzs A t2 Pradesh6 and the recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 & 31482 of 2023, dt.O6.O6.2O24, the decisions, on which reliance is placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the aspect of delay and latches, would not advance the case of the respondents.

22. In view of the discussion made as above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, whose assignment patta lands were resumed by the respondents-autlorities, are entitled to receive ex-gratia amount on par with the compensation amount paid to the land acquired from the patta holders along with accrued interest therein, after deducting the amount of ex-gratia amount already received by the petitioners in the year 2016.

23. Since, this Court has now held that the petitioners being eligible to receive the difference of ex-gratia amount along with accrued interest thereon, the respondents- u 1zozz1 z scc sos 13 authorities are directed to make the aforesaid payment within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

24. Subject to the above observation and direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

25. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 26th November,2024 T. VINOD KUMAR, J