Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Jonnadula Sambasiva Rao And Ors. on 7 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(1)ALT273
Bench: Chief Justice, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
JUDGMENT Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. This order will dispose of Writ Appeals Nos. 1241, 1242, 1243, and 1244 of 1990 which arise from the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 31st July 1990 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 6444 and 6445 of 1990.
2. Out of the four writ-appeals, two have been filed by the writ-petitioners and two have been filed by the respondents in the writ-petitions.
3. The writ-petitions came to be filed in the following circumstances ; Four Notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), were issued on 9-12-1980 in respect of contiguous lands/in the villages of Mangalagiri and Nowluru, acquiring 96 acres and 69 cents, and 359 acres and 41 cents of land (comprised in three notifications) respectively. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were also issued on the same day dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.
4. In the year 1982 Writ Petition No : 6150 of 1982 & batch were filed by owners of lands, who were affected by the said Notifications, questioning the acquisition. A learned single Judge by order dated 27th December 1985 allowed the said writ-petitions and quashed the Notifications. Against that, Writ Appeal No. 111 of 1986 & batch were preferred. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ-appeals upholding the validity of the Notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and directing inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to be conducted with liberty to parties to raise all their objections. After inquiry, fresh Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 31st December 1986. Again, four writ-petitions were filed questioning the Declarations under Section 6 of the Act. While this batch of four writ-petitions was pending, the Government issued G.O Ms.No. 25, MA., dated 21st January 1987 constituting a Committee consisting of District Collector concerned, Vice-Chairman of the concerned Urban Development Authority, and the Land Acquisition Officer concerned, as Member Secretary, to negotiate price at which lands could be purchased. The said committee was given authority to approve rate at which lands could be purchased. Based on rate approved by the Committee, Land Acquisition Officer was required to obtain agreements from such persons who were willing to enter into agreements, and then make awards in terms of such agreements. In respect of those who were not willing to enter into agreements, Land Acquisition Officer was required to proceed with acquisition and determine compensation payable to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. While proceedings before the said committee were still pending, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 21-3-1988 (Award No. 1 of 1988) in relation to 64 acres and 39 cents of land.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No. 25 dated 21-1-1987, the committee constituted passed a resolution fixing a particular value for the land situated in the said two villages. Though this resolution was passed by the said Committee approving a particular rate, three awards were made. Out of the said awards, Award No. 1 of 1989 is in respect of the balance of the land of 32 acres and 03 cents of Mangalagiri village, and the same was made on 8-2-1989. The other two awards viz., Award No. 2 of 1989 and Award No. 3 of 1989, dated 9-2-1989 and 10-2-1989 respectively, are in respect of the land in Nowluru village. So far as Award No. 1 of 1989 is concerned, it was not passed based on recommendation of the committee but, compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre was awarded in relation to the land in Mangalagiri village. In Award No. 2 of 1989, in relation to 136 acres and 36 cents of land in Nowluru village, compensation at flat rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre was awarded. Award No. 3 of 1989 related to the balance of the land in Nowluru village measuring 102 acres and 23 cents, and the compensation awarded was based on the valuation fixed by the committee, constituted by G.O.Ms.No. 25, dated 21-1-1987, and terms of agreements, viz., at Rs. 20,000/-per acre. It may be pertinent to mention that Award No. 2 of 1989 made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not in pursuance of agreements. But the compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre in relation to the land in Nowluru village. However, in respect of lands covered by agreements, the compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre in view of the valuation fixed by the committee.
7. Four writ-petitions which had been filed earlier were dismissed on 9-6-1989 with a direction to surrender possession of lands within two months there from. Writ Appeals No. 1600 and 1747 of 1989 were preferred against that dismissal. While the said writ appeals were pending, the negotiating committee again met and passed an amended resolution on 31-8-1989. The Committee dealt with the demands of the writ-appellants herein also while passing the amended resolution. Two changes were made in the earlier resolution dated 11-8-1988. The first change was in respect of award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre in relation to survey numbers dealt with by the Committee, and the committee recommended award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre together with other benefits such as solatium etc., and the second change is contained in the rider which was added to this recommendation. It provides as under :
"According to the instructions in force, the persons who go to the court questioning the land acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed the benefit of the rate proposed to be paid by the committee. In view of the request of the land owners not to deny this benefit to those who went to the Court in this case challenging the land acquisition proceedings the committee felt that the Government may be requested to relax the restrictions and permit the Land Acquisition Officer to pay the difference of the rate to the ryots who have gone to the court questioning the land acquisition."
In pursuance of the amended resolution of the committee, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, V.G.T.U.D.A., Vijayawada issued Notice dated 9-10-1989 calling upon the writ-petitioners to produce documents of title before 31-10-1989, and also recited therein that, after perusal of documents, agreements will be entered into with them and compensation paid. In pursuance of this notice, the writ-petitioners appeared before that authority, and the said authority and writ-petitioners executed agreements agreeing to pay/accept compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre together with other benefits under the Act, and thereafter deliver possession foregoing their right of making a reference to court for enhancement of compensation pursuant to earlier awards.
8. We may mention that, though Awards Nos. 1 of 1988, 1 of 1989, and 2 of 1989 were passed as far back as on 21-3-1988. 8-2-1989 and 9-2-1989 respectively, (he writ-petitioners had not accepted the compensation awarded thereunder and were agitating throughout for grant of compensation on par with the compensation awarded in Award No. 3 of 1989 dated 10-2-1989 i.e., at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per acre.
9. It was on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances that the Committee, which was constituted for the purpose of fixing valuation, had thought it fit to revise the rate from Rs. 20,000/- per acre to Rs. 30,000/- per acre and accordingly revised the same by its resolution dated 31-8-1989. Pursuant to the same, agreements were entered into by the writ-petitioners. But, it appears, thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer failed to comply with agreements entered into pursuant to the committee resolution dated 31-8-1989.
10. It was under these circumstances that the present writ-petitions have been filed seeking payment of compensation at the rate agreed to by the writ-petitioners in their respective agreements.
11. Before the learned single Judge the plea taken was that Award No. 3 of 1989 which awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per acre for Nowluru land was in pursuance of agreements with those owners who had agreed to accept the compensation awarded instead of questioning the validity of acquisition proceedings, and in respect of others, depending upon the circumstances, three awards were made on 21-3-1988, 8-2-1989 and 9-2-1989 respectively. It is also submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had no power, after the Award was passed, to increase compensation even though agreements had been entered into i.e., he had no power to modify the award.
12. The learned single Judge took the view that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- per acre to one set of landowners, and the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre to another set of owners, was discriminatory.
13. Before the learned single Judge, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Sri P. M. Gopal Rao, made a concession that, if the writ-petitioners file applications for waiving the question of limitation, the authorities may be directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Mr. M. V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ-petitioners, accepted this. Therefore, the learned single Judge directed that the writ-petitioners will file applications for waiving the question of limitation before the authorities within one month from the date of his order. The learned Judge further directed the authorities to deposit compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The learned single Judge also noticed :
"..... No doubt some persons similarly situated have not approached this Court. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the cases of those persons and pay compensation to them at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre in respect of lands at Nowhiru and Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of lands at Mangalagiri....."
14. Before us, the land-owners (writ-petitioners) are aggrieved inasmuch as the compensation directed to be paid is at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per acre in respect of lands at Nowluru whereas, the rate has been revised based on a subsequent resolution dated 31-8-1989 and agreements entered into, to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. On the other hand, being aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of the aforesaid lands, the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and the Urban Development Authority have preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 1241 and 1244 of 1990.
15. Before us, Sri P. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that, after agreements were entered into in pursuance of the resolution of the Committee dated 31-8-1989, the Land Acquisition Officer sought legal opinion and he was advised that he had no power or jurisdiction to pass a fresh award after he had passed the earlier award and that he had become functus officio. Another objection sought to be urged before us is that the Committee was not empowered to fix any valuation or make any recommendation in relation to lands which were subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings especially when the awards had been made and the acquisition proceedings themselves are under challenge before the Court. It is further submitted that the Committee was not constituted to give any recommendation in relation to lands covered by awards that had been passed.
16. It is to be noticed that, after declarations under Section 6 of the Act are made, proceedings are taken under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act and awards are passed under Section II (1) of the Act. Section 11 (2) of the Act contemplates award to be made based on agreement. Under Section 12 the award is made final. Of course, the award is subject to a reference, at the instance of the claimants, either under Section 18 or under Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 of the Act provides :
"31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in court :
(1) On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next Sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or, if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted :
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount :
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18.
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Section the Collector may with the sanction of the appropriate Government, instead of awarding a money, compensation in respect of land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing Sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof."
Thus, it is clear from Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act that, nothing stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act can curb the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in land and competent to contract in respect thereof. Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act, therefore, refers to the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in land. Thus, even after the award, power is conferred, under the said Sub-section, on the Collector to enter into any arrangement.
17. It is thus clear that the Collector, even after the award, under Section 31 (4) of the Act is empowered to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land, and it will not be correct to say that merely because the award is passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Collector becomes functus officio in the matter of entering into any arrangement either under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the agreements entered into by the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of the amended resolution of the Committee dated 31-8-1989 are good arrangements, and the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to enter into and comply with the same. We thus find no merit in the first submission.
18. Coming to the second and third submissions, it would be noticed that, apart from the recommendation of the Committee, the Collector has entered into special agreements, and the power of the Collector to do so has been upheld by us already. In any case, the appellants viz., the Land Acquisition Officer and the Urban Development Authority, for whose benefit the lands are acquired, never urged these points before the learned single Judge either in the counter-affidavit, or, during the course of arguments and, therefore, the same cannot be permitted to be urged, for the first time, in the appeals under Clause XV of the Letters Patent.
19. Another point urged is that, no direction could have been given by the learned single Judge in relation to persons who have not approached the Court.
20. As we have noticed earlier, we have upheld the power of the Collector to enter into arrangements/contracts after the award and, in pursuance thereof, special agreements were entered into which were being sought to be enforced through proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, in the absence of any such arrangement/agreement, no orders could be passed by this Court directing payment of compensation to land-owners over and above the amounts awarded by the awards already passed.
21. Coming to the writ appeals viz., W. A. Nos. 1242 and 1243 of 1990, filed by the writ-petitioners for a direction to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 000/- per acre together with other benefits available under the Act, we find that special agreements have been entered into for paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre together with grant of additional benefits available under the Act, and not at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. It appears that there was some confusion before the learned single Judge and he gave a direction for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre.
22. We accordingly modify the judgment of the learned single Judge to this extent in favour of the writ-petitioners that the compensation is directed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre to the writ-petitioners together with other benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act.
23. In the result, the direction given to the respondents-appellants to pay compensation to land-owners who have neither approached the Court nor entered into agreements with the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, is quashed, and Writ Appeals No. 1241 and 1244 of 1990 are allowed to that extent. Writ Appeals Nos. 1242 and 1243 of 1990, preferred by the writ-petitioners, are allowed to the extent that the respondents therein are directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre, as agreed to in the agreements. The authorities are free to withdraw amounts, if any, deposited in the civil court and pay the compensation, as directed above, within a period of three months from to-day.
24. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/- in each.