land acquisition of assinged lands - compensation - we hold that the assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to compensation as owners of the land and for all other consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the land.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.508 of 2023

Between:

The Special Collector (LA),

Telugu Ganga Project,

Nellore, Nilagiri Sangam,

Near Police Quarters,

Nellore, Nellore District & another.

 …Appellants

Versus

Madde Ramaiah,

S/o.Suraiah, R/o.Gundavolu Village,

Rapur Mandal,

Nellore District & 3 others.

 …Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : G.P for Land Acquisition

Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : Sri P.Gangi Rami Reddy

JUDGMENT

Dt:04.01.2024

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition, appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Gangi Rami

Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4.

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

2

2. Respondents 1 to 4 had been occupation of various

extents of land in Gudavolu village and had been cultivating the said

lands. The extent and location of the said land is not in dispute. The

dispute is only on the question of whether the respondents, whose

lands have now been taken over by the State and have been

submerged, under the Kandaleru Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project,

are to be paid compensation, in terms of the judgment of the Larger

Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella

Division, Hyderabad and Others vs. Mekala Pandu and Others1. In

this case, the Larger Bench was considering the question of whether

assignees, who had been granted assignment under DKT pattas

were entitled only for ex gratia or for payment and benefits on par

with full owners of land even where the assigned land is taken over

by State, in accordance with the terms of grant or patta, where such

resumption is for a public purpose. The Larger Bench after

considering the entire law on the issue, had held that the

compensation clause restricting the right of the assignees to claim

full compensation is unconstitutional and that, such assignees are

entitled for the same compensation as is being paid to full owners of

the land. This decision of the Larger Bench was challenged before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said challenge was dismissed by

1

(2004) 2 ALT 546 (L.B)

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

3

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 04.08.2014 in Civil

Appeal No.7904 of 2012 and Batch.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 being aggrieved by non grant of

compensation, on par with the owners of land in the neighbouring

area, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.6666 of 2009,

claiming compensation on par with all the land losers who were

owners of the land. This Writ Petition was allowed by a learned

single judge, by an order dated 14.10.2023, directing the appellants

herein to pay full compensation with full consequential benefits to

the respondents, on par with full owners of land. The appellants

were permitted to deduct the payments, which had already been

made, in the form of ex gratia.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Special Collector (Land

Acquisition) and The Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project

have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. The

learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the

appellants, contends that the respondents 1 to 4 are not assignees

as they had been granted land as members of a Cooperative

Farming Society Scheme and are only lessees under the CJFS

Scheme. She would submit that these persons are not on par with

D.K Patta holders and as such are not entitled to the benefit of the

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

4

Judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Land Acquisition

Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella Division, Hyderabad and Others vs.

Mekala Pandu and Others., nor to the benefits set out under

G.O.Ms.No.259 Revenue (Assn-1) Dept., dated 21.06.2016. The

question of whether lessees under the Cooperative Joint Forming

Society Scheme should be equated with assignees holding DKT

pattas had came up before this Court. A learned Single Judge, by an

order dated 06.08.2018 in W.P.No.35981 of 2015, after considering

the same issue had held that even lands given for displaced person

under the Cooperative Joint Farming Society Scheme would be

entitled to the benefit of Mekala Pandu's case. This Judgment was

reaffirmed by the learned Single Judge, by his order dated

10.10.2018 In W.P.No.4486 of 2018.

 5. In MEKALA PANDU, the larger Bench held as follows:

82. The assignees are constitutional claimants. The constitutional

claim cannot be subjected to governmental restrictions or

sanctions except pursuant to the constitutionally valid rule or law.

There is no legislation enacted by the State compelling it to assign

the lands to the weaker sections of the society. The State

obviously assigned and granted pattas as a measure of providing

public assistance to the weaker sections of the society. The

proposition is that as a general rule the State may grant privilege

upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose; but the power of the

State in that regard is not unlimited, and one of the limitations that

it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of

constitutional rights. That whenever State is required to make

laws, regulations or policies, it must do so consistently with the

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

5

directive principles with a view to securing social and economic

freedom so essential for establishment of an egalitarian society.

The directive principles of State policy reflect the hopes and

aspirations of people of this great country. The fact that they are

not enforceable by any Court in no manner reduces their

importance. They are nevertheless fundamental in the governance

of the country and the State is under obligation to apply them in

making laws and framing its policies particularly concerning the

weaker sections of the society. 83. Dr. Ambedkar characterised

the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Part IV of the

Constitution of India as “Instruments of Instructions”. He said

“whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with

it. In exercise of it, he will have to respect these “Instruments of

Instructions”, which are called Directive Principles. He cannot

ignore them.”

 ………….

91. „No compensation‟ clause which virtually enables the State

to withdraw the privilege granted without payment of just

compensation is an “unconstitutional condition” imposed by the

State adversely affects the life, liberty, equality and dignity

guaranteed by the Constitution. The assignment of lands to the

exploited and vulnerable sections of the society is neither a

formality nor a gratis. The privilege granted is with a view to

ensure and protect the rights of the exploited sections of the

people to live with human dignity free from exploitation. The

privilege or largess once granted acquires the status of vested

interest. The policy to assign the government land by the State

was obviously designed to protect the socioeconomic status of a

vulnerable citizenry; its deprivation would be universally perceived

as a misfortune.

………..

Right to Life:

106. Be it noted, the land by way of assignment is let for

purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, for

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

6

personal occupation and cultivation by the agricultural labourers

and others belonging to weaker sections of the society. It may be

lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is

within the ceiling limit but not without providing for compensation

at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof.

The acquisition of such land even for a public purpose without

payment of compensation shall be in the teeth of Article 31-A of

the Constitution of India.

………….

108. In the result, we hold that „no compensation‟ clause,

restricting the right, of the assignees to claim full compensation in

respect of the land resumed equivalent to the market value of the

land, is unconstitutional. The „no compensation clause‟ infringes

the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 31-A of the

Constitution. We are conscious that Article 21 essentially deals

with personal liberty. But in cases where deprivation of property

would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood, Article 21

springs into action and any such deprivation without just payment

of compensation amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed

thereunder. The doctrine of „unconstitutional conditions‟ applies

in all its force.

………………

109. In the circumstances, we hold that the assignees of the

government lands are entitled to payment of compensation

equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits

on par with full owners of the land even in cases where the

assigned lands are taken possession of by the State in

accordance with the terms of grant or patta, though such

resumption is for a public purpose. We further hold that even in

cases where the State does not invoke the covenant of the grant

or patta to resume the land for such public purpose and resorts to

acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, the assignees shall be entitled to

compensation as owners of the land and for all other

consequential benefits under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. No condition incorporated in patta/deed of

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

7

assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the

right of the assignee to claim full compensation as owner of the

land.

6. The above passages from MEKALA PANDU, make it

amply clear that the beneficiaries, of alleged State largesse, are

Constitutional claimants who cannot be fobbed off on the ground

that the rights granted to them, over land, are temporary or subject

to the conditions of the grant, to the extent of depriving them of

compensation which they are entitled to. It must be held that even

farmers granted leases of land under the Common Joint Farming

Schemes would be entitled to the benefit of the Judgement, on par

with assignees holding DKT pattas.

7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

 RJS

2024:APHC:61

 HCJ&RRR,J

 W.A. No.508 of 2023

8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No. 508 of 2023

 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Dt:04.01.2024

RJS

2024:APHC:61