WP/28087/2007 of Domma Venugopal , Vonese Venugopal Vs The Joint Collector, chittoor, Chittoor District on 28 December 2007

COMMON ORDER:

Since similar questions that arise for consideration in these writpetitions, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of commonorder.

It is the case of the petitioners that against the orders passed by theTahsildar, Madanapalle, in proceedings Roc.No.246/2007, dated 08-03-2007; Roc.No.252/2007, dated 03-03-2007; Roc.No.264/2007, dated08-03-2007 and Roc.No.270/2007, dated 20-05-2007, in cancelling D.K.T.pattas granted in favour of the petitioners and resuming the landsfor the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sectionsin exercise of the powers conferred as per condition No.17 of DKT pattas,the petitioners filed appeals before the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Madanapalle. The Revenue Divisional Officer through orders,dated 21-07-2007, in proceedings Nos.D.Dis.(B1)/1963/2007, D.Dis.(B1)/1061/2007, D.Dis.(B1)/1059/2007 and D.Dis.(B1)/1060/2007, whiledismissing the appeals observed that the petitioners are eligible for ex-gratiaas provided under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23-12-1993, since the lands wereresumed for public purpose like providing house sites to the landless poor. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to approach the Tahsildhar,Madanapalle, for ex-gratia. Aggrieved by the orders of the RevenueDivisional Officer, the petitioners filed revisions before the Joint Collector,Chittoor and the same are pending.

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits thathe will not pursue the remedy of revision in view of the order passed by thiscourt in W.P.No.19778 of 2006 and batch, dated 19-10-2006. The facts ofthese cases are similar to the facts in W.P.No.19778 of 2006 and batch, asthe lands in questions were admittedly allotted vide D.K.T. pattas and theassigned lands were resumed in exercise of the powers conferred as percondition No.17 of D.K.T. patta.

Though the Larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, ChavellaDivision, Domalagude, Hyderabad Vs. Mekala Pandu[[1]]held that the assignees are also entitled for compensation in accordance with theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), wheneversuch lands are resumed, the said judgment of the Larger Bench was stayedby the Supreme Court. In the subsequent judgment in P.MALLAIAH Vs.

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[[2]]this court held to the effect thatsuch assignees of DKT patta holders, whose lands have been resumed forthe public purpose, are entitled to claim compensation as per the provisionsof the Act, that is to say, solatium, additional compensation and interest.

Accordingly, following the aforesaid judgments, this court disposed ofW.P.No.19978 of 2006 and batch, on 19-10-2006, directing the respondentsto pay compensation/ex-gratia as per the provisions of the Act includingsolatium, additional compensation and interest. However, the direction shallbe enforceable subject to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appealsfiled against the decision in MEKALA PANDU’s case (1 supra).

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writpetitions are disposed of directing the respondents to pay compensation/ex-gratia as per the provisions of the Act including solatium, additionalcompensation and interest. However, the direction shall be enforceablesubject to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeals filed against thedecision in MEKALA PANDU’s case (1 supra). There shall be no order asto costs.

___________

28-12-2007

Prv