HYDERABAD: Dismissing the State government’s contention that there is no need to pay land acquisition compensation for the land allotted on lease for resettlement of poor families, the Hyderabad High Court has directed the Andhra Pradesh government to treat the members of the Gopavaram project site cooperative joint farming society in Kadapa district as assignees and pay them compensation as per market value and other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within four months.
Justice MS Ramachandra Rao was passing this order recently with regard to a petition filed by the society with a plea to declare the action of the government in not paying compensation on par with the pattadar owners for the acquisition of 44.55 acres of land at Gopavaram village in Kadapa district, as illegal.
In 1972, 1,231.73 acres of land at Gopalavaram was handed over to Badvel Taluk Land Development Society comprising members mostly from the SC community. In this regard, the government issued a GO for resettlement of 280 poor families on lease for a period of 99 years free of cost.
In 2009, the authorities acquired 44.55 acres of land belonging to the society for the purpose of Obulam branch canal of Telugu Ganga project. The society members urged the government to treat them as assignees and pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
When the authorities refused to pay compensation, society chairman P Eswaraiah moved the high court for relief. The government counsel contended that the lands in occupation of the society members were neither assigned lands nor encroached lands, and that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation on par with assignees or landowners.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the judge said that the State cannot take advantage of the fact that the enjoyment of petitioners was not by virtue of a deed of assignment and deprive them the benefits of compensation equivalent to market value of the land and other benefits payable to a regular owner of land, when they were deprived of said land for public purpose by the State.
“The policy designed to protect socio-economic status of the vulnerable class, who are admittedly poor farmers, cannot be allowed to be defeated in this manner,” the judge noted.