Holders of Government-issued Pattas with Bhumiswami rights are entitled to land acquisition compensation on par with owners.

The petitioner was granted a Patta (land title) for 210 sq. meters of land (Khasra No. 722) in Village Jarhagaon in 2017, where he subsequently built a house

On 26.05.2020, Respondent No. 5 issued a notice alleging the petitioner was an encroacher on government land and that his house required demolition for the widening of National Highway No. 130A

While a supplementary award was passed in 2021 assessing compensation for the house (superstructure) at ₹5,57,206/-, the state refused to grant compensation for the land itself, arguing it was recorded as government land (Abadi Bhumi) and the petitioner was not the owner

The petitioner sought a direction for acquisition under due process and full compensation for both the house and the land

1. Whether an assignee/holder of a government Patta with Bhumiswami rights is entitled to compensation for land value on par with a full owner when the land is acquired for public purposes.

The Court primarily applied the principle that an assignee of government land who has been granted Bhumiswami (ownership) rights cannot be treated as a mere encroacher

It relied on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO v. Mekala Pandu, which established that assignees are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value of the land even if the state seeks to resume the land under the terms of a Patta for public purposes

This principle was further bolstered by the fact that the Supreme Court affirmed Mekala Pandu in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn Ltd. v. Ramesh Singh

The Court examined the Patta (Annexure-P/2) and determined that it explicitly assigned Bhumiswami rights to the petitioner, including the right to sell or transfer the land

Although the respondents argued that the land was recorded as government Abadi land, the Court reasoned that the grant of Bhumiswami rights elevated the petitioner’s status from an occupier to an owner

Applying the Mekala Pandu precedent, the Court held that conditions in a Patta cannot operate as a "clog" on the right to claim full compensation

Since the state had already determined compensation for the superstructure, it was legally inconsistent to deny compensation for the underlying land for which a valid title had been issued by the state itself

The Court directed the respondents to complete the necessary proceedings for granting compensation for the 210 sq. meter land (Khasra No. 722) within 90 days. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the interim protection against demolition and eviction shall remain effective until the order is complied with. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions