No Ownership for DKT Patta Holders: Resumption of Land is Not Acquisition

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh clarified that assignees of Government land under DKT pattas do not attain the status of absolute owners, and the resumption of such lands for public purposes does not mandate fresh acquisition proceedings if compensation is paid on par with patta holders.

A bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam set aside a previous Single Judge order that had directed the State to initiate fresh proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that administrative memos cannot override statutory Government Orders (GOs) or redefine the legal status of 'assigned lands' as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition Of Transfers) Act, 1977.

The Rationale: Resumption vs. Acquisition

The Court emphasized the distinct legal difference between 'acquisition' and 'resumption'. While acquisition involves the State taking over pre-existing private rights, resumption is the exercise of a right to take back land granted under specific conditions.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The term 'resumption' must not therefore be conflated with the term 'acquisition' as employed within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 so as to create a right to compensation... Acquisition denotes a positive act on behalf of the State to deprive an individual's enjoyment of a pre-existing right in a property whereas resumption denotes a punitive action by the State to take back the right or an interest in a property which was granted by it in the first place."

The Court Directions:

"The Court has following directions:

"i) the judgment under appeals cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. ii) We accordingly set aside the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.23208 of 2010. W.A.Nos.205 & 259 of 2014, 848 of 2022 are allowed. iii) we clarify that the compensation amount as paid to the writ petitioners or if something remain to be paid, pursuant to the previous orders dated 17.07.2008 & 15.12.2008 passed in W.P.Nos.561/2007 & 26439 of 2008, if unpaid, or if partly unpaid, that shall be paid to the writ petitioners. iv) W.P.No.26568 of 2014 is accordingly dismissed.""

Administrative Memos Cannot Override Government Orders

The dispute centered on a Government Memo dated 16.09.2000, which suggested that certain repatriates from Sriharikota were entitled to alienation rights. However, the Court ruled that this memo could not supersede G.O.Ms.No.1024 (1970) or G.O.Ms.No.1142 (1954), which explicitly prohibited the transfer of assigned lands. Relying on Rohan Vijay Nahar v. The State of Maharashtra and K. V. Ramana Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Court reiterated that an administrative memo issued by a Secretary cannot bypass the statutory authority of a GO issued in the name of the Governor.

Finality of Previous Litigations

The Court noted that the petitioners had already approached the High Court multiple times. In previous judgments like LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v. Mekala Pandu and Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divnl Officer, Chevella Divn. V. Mekala Pandu, the petitioners were treated as assignees entitled to compensation at par with owners, but were never declared as 'absolute owners'. Since those judgments had attained finality, the Court held that the Single Judge erred in reopening the issue of title.

Background:

The case arose from the resumption of lands in Thonduru Village, which were originally assigned to persons displaced by the Sriharikota Rocket Launching Station project in 1970. In 2007, the State resumed these lands to establish a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for APIIC and Sri City Pvt. Ltd. The assignees challenged the resumption, demanding that the land be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rather than being resumed via executive order.

The Division Bench observed that since the resumption orders were not set aside in earlier rounds of litigation and the petitioners were paid compensation including solatium and additional market value as per Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divnl Officer, Chevella Divn. V. Mekala Pandu (following the principles of Yadaiah v. State of Telangana ( "(2023) 10 SCC 755": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 639)), there was no violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Case Details:
Case No.: Writ Appeal Nos. 205, 259 of 2014, 848 of 2022 & Writ Petition No. 26568 of 2014
NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:20314
Case Title: M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. v. N. Sakkubayamma (died) per LRs and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri K. S. Murthy, Sr. Advocate; Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao; GP for Land Acquisition; Sri G. R. Sudhakar
For the Respondent(s): Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 177