Assigned/Rehabilitation Lands — Sriharikota evacuees — Lands granted under G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970 — Nature of rights — Not ordinary DKT assignments.
The Division Bench held that lands granted to Sriharikota evacuees/repatriates under G.O.Ms.No.1024, Industries & Commerce Department as part of rehabilitation package consequent upon acquisition of their original lands for Rocket Launching Station, stood on distinct footing from ordinary DKT assignments. Government Memo dated 16.09.2000 expressly recognized that such repatriates were entitled to rights of alienation and directed issuance of regular pattas with all rights. Consequently, authorities could not subsequently treat such lands as ordinary DKT lands with restricted rights while resuming lands for SEZ project.
— Paras 8, 9 & 33 to 36.
Land Acquisition — Rehabilitation assignees/repatriates — Right to compensation on par with pattadars — Resumption by executive action impermissible where full ownership rights recognized.
Where lands allotted to Sriharikota evacuees were resumed for establishment of Special Economic Zone by APIIC/Sri City, the Court held that once Government itself recognized assignees’ right of alienation and directed issuance of regular pattas with full rights, petitioners could not be treated as mere DKT assignees entitled only to ex-gratia. Authorities were bound to acquire lands under Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation as payable to full owners/pattadars.
— Paras 31 to 36.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Assigned lands — Compensation — Assignees entitled to compensation equivalent to full market value and statutory benefits.
The Court reiterated principle laid down in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu that assignees of Government lands are entitled to compensation equivalent to full market value of land and all consequential statutory benefits on par with full owners even where lands are resumed in accordance with terms of assignment for public purpose. Conditions in assignment patta cannot operate as clog on right to claim compensation.
— Paras 22 & 23.
Resumption of assigned lands — Public purpose — Requirement to follow due process under Land Acquisition Act.
The Court held that where lands of writ petitioners were sought for establishment of Industrial Park/Special Economic Zone and petitioners possessed alienable rights akin to ownership, respondents could not bypass acquisition proceedings and resort merely to executive resumption coupled with payment of ex-gratia. Due process contemplated under Land Acquisition Act was mandatory.
— Paras 20 to 22, 29 & 32.
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) — Resumption proceedings — Compensation proceedings cannot validate illegal resumption.
Though compensation proceedings dated 21.07.2010 fixed compensation on par with patta lands inclusive of market value, solatium and additional market value, Court held that determination of compensation alone would not validate executive resumption where authorities failed to invoke proper acquisition procedure under Land Acquisition Act.
— Paras 27 to 30 & 32.
Government Memo — Binding effect on subordinate authorities — Revenue authorities cannot ignore clarification issued by Government regarding nature of assignment.
The Division Bench observed that Government, being final authority, had already clarified through Memo dated 16.09.2000 that repatriates under G.O.Ms.No.1024 possessed rights of alienation and were entitled to regular pattas with all rights. Subordinate authorities therefore acted illegally in treating such assignments as restricted DKT assignments and in offering only ex-gratia compensation.
— Paras 33 to 36.
Article 300-A of Constitution — Deprivation of property — Authority of law mandatory.
The writ petitioners challenged dispossession from rehabilitation lands without acquisition proceedings as violative of constitutional protection under Article 300-A. Court accepted that deprivation of such lands, after recognition of alienable ownership rights, could not be effected except through authority of law i.e., acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act.
— Paras 21, 29 & 32.
Finality of prior judgments — Earlier judgments recognizing compensation rights attained finality.
The Court noted that earlier judgments in W.P.No.561 of 2007 and W.P.No.26439 of 2008 directing payment of compensation and recognizing entitlement of assignees to compensation at par with pattadars had attained finality since neither side challenged them.
— Paras 24 to 26.
Negotiated compensation — Assigned lands — Ex-gratia fixed on par with patta lands.
Proceedings dated 21.07.2010 revealed that compensation for DKT lands resumed for SEZ project was fixed on par with patta lands, inclusive of market value, solatium, additional market value and negotiated enhancement percentage agreed before District Negotiation Committee.
— Paras 27 & 28.
Writ jurisdiction — Learned Single Judge directing initiation of acquisition proceedings — Upheld consideration of ownership-like rights of repatriates.
The learned Single Judge set aside resumption proceedings and directed issuance of notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of Land Acquisition Act and completion of acquisition proceedings within stipulated time. Division Bench examined legality of said directions in light of rights flowing from G.O.Ms.No.1024 and Government Memo dated 16.09.2000.
— Paras 32 to 36.
No comments:
Post a Comment