Court Rules Government Memo Cannot Confer Alienation Rights Over Statutory Orders; Assignees Entitled Only to Compensation, Not Ownership or Acquisition Rights
In a landmark judgment dated May 11, 2026, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, decisively ruled on a prolonged dispute involving M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. and displaced persons rehabilitated under a government scheme following land acquisition at Sriharikota.
The case centered around lands assigned to displaced families as part of rehabilitation under Government Order (G.O.) Ms.No.1024 dated November 2, 1970, which explicitly provided land allotments for cultivation subject to a non-alienation condition. The assignees were later issued pattadar passbooks and a government memo dated September 16, 2000, purportedly granting alienation rights.
The writ petitioners, originally displaced from Sriharikota, contested the resumption of their assigned lands by the State of Andhra Pradesh for the establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developed by M/s. Sri City Pvt. Ltd. They claimed ownership rights and argued that the lands could only be taken by following the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) procedures, including compensation aligned with acquisition principles.
However, the High Court found that the lands were assigned under a statutory framework that imposed a non-alienation clause, and the government memo could not override this condition or convert assignees into owners with alienable rights. The Court underscored that assignments under G.O.Ms.No.1024 and G.O.Ms.No.1142 (dated June 18, 1954) established the lands as assigned lands, subject to resumption by the government on payment of compensation, rather than acquisition requiring formal notification and proceedings under the L.A. Act.
The Court extensively analyzed precedent cases, including the Full Bench judgment in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O. v. Mekala Pandu (2004) and subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) and Yadaiah v. State of Telangana (2023). It distinguished the present facts from cases where assignees held sale deeds and unchallenged pattadar passbooks conferring ownership rights.
In the present matter, the Court held that pattadar passbooks issued post the government memo did not confer title or ownership but merely recognized possession and revenue rights. The assignees remained non-owners entitled only to compensation at par with patta holders, as governed by G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated December 23, 1993, and previous court directions in related writ petitions.
Further, the Court noted that the resumption order dated September 23, 2008, had attained finality as it was not challenged in earlier proceedings. The impugned judgment of the Single Judge dated November 4, 2013, which set aside the resumption and directed acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, was overturned. The Court emphasized judicial discipline, holding that coordinate benches’ earlier decisions treating assignees as non-owners and allowing only compensation must be respected.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the resumption order on grounds of delay (laches) and reiterated that the government’s executive resumption of assigned lands was lawful, provided compensation as per government orders was paid. The Court clarified that while assignees are entitled to compensation, they do not possess ownership rights that would trigger acquisition procedures under the L.A. Act.
This ruling affirms the principle that assigned lands under rehabilitation schemes are subject to non-alienation conditions, and government memos cannot confer alienable ownership rights contrary to statutory orders. It also clarifies the distinction between resumption and acquisition, underscoring that resumption of assigned lands with compensation does not require acquisition notifications under the L.A. Act.
Bottom line:-
Assigned lands given to displaced persons under rehabilitation scheme are subject to the condition of non-alienation as per G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970 read with G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954 - A Government Memo cannot override or confer alienable rights contrary to the Government Orders - Assignees of such lands are entitled only to compensation on resumption, not ownership or acquisition rights under the Land Acquisition Act - Issuance of pattadar passbooks alone does not confer title or ownership.
Statutory provision(s):
G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 02.11.1970, G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18.06.1954, G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
