Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Peda Veerender And Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer/R.D.O., ... on 22 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995AP36, 1994(3)ALT610, AIR 1995 ANDHRA PRADESH 36, (1994) 2 LS 254, (1995) 2 CIVLJ 54, (1995) 1 CURCC 168, (1994) 3 ANDH LT 610
ORDER
1.In this writ petition the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the value for their lands which were acquired by a common notification, redeter-mined under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, falls for consideration.
2. Petitioners, whose lands measuring Acs 13-20 guntas of Sy. Nos. 399 to 405 and 407-A of Kanteswaram village, Nizamabad District, were acquired for providing house sites pursuant to a notification issued in G.O.Ms. No. 96, dated 20-1-1976. Along with the lands of the petitioners, some other lands belonging to some other persons situated in Sy. No. 3286 were also acquired by the said notification, by the respondents. As far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, it is stated, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 20,000,00/- per acre under three awards dated 20-3-1977, 6-9-1977 and 26-6-1978. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, by his order dated 20-6-1979, in O.P. No. 361 of 1977 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000.00/- per acre for the lands measuring Acs. 8-36 guntas in Sy Nos. 400 to 404. With regard to the other lands of the petitioners measuring Acs. 4-24 gunfas, the Additional District Judge fixed the compensation at Rs. 13/- per square yard by his order dated 30-1-1985 passed in O.P. No. 347 of 1982. It is the case of the petitioners, with regard to the lands pertaining to others measuring Ac. 1-07 guntas of Sy. No. 3286, which was also acquired by the same notification, the Additional District Judge fixed the compensation at Rs. 46/- per square yard after deducting 1/3rd area towards development, by his order dated 27-11-1987 in O.P. No. 197 of 1985.
3. Petitioners contend, the land subject-matter of O.P. No. 197 of 1985 and the lands of the petitioners, subject-matter of O.P. Nos. 361 of 1977 and 347 of 1982, are one and the same and were acquired under the same notification and as such they are also entitled to get the same compensation as awarded to the persons whose land was also acquired through the same notification by the respondents. It is contended further that immediately after the passing of the orders in O.P. No. 197 of 1985, within the time stipulated, an application dated 27-1-1988 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was filed before the first respondent seeking redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded in O.P. No. 197 of 1985. The Deputy Collector, Social Welfare, seems to have sent a reply on 20-7-1988 stating that an appeal has been preferred against the orders in O.P. No. 197 of 1985 in the High Court and, therefore, their case could not be considered. The petitioners seem to have represented to the respondents stating that mere pendency of appeal shall not be a ground for rejecting the claim pf the petitioners for redetermination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since there was no response, the petitioners seem to have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11089 of 1988, seeking direction to the first respondent for redetermination of the value of their lands also in terms' of the award passed in O.P. No. 197 of 1985, dated 27-11-1987, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 3-10-1989, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioners, seeking redetermination in terms of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after giving necessary opportunity.
4. It is stated that initially the respondents in their counter admitted the facts that the petitioners are also entitled to get relief in terms of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provided the petitioners establish that their lands are similar to that of the land, subject-matter of O.P. No. 197 of 1985. An inspection seems to have been made by the first respondent on 21-7-1991 and issued proceedings on 24-7-1991, to the effect that the representation filed by the petitioners is in time; that the lands of the petitioners also are covered by the notification issued in G.O, No. 96 of dated 20-1-1976; that the lands of the petitioners are similar in all aspects to the land, subject-matter of O.P. No. 197 of 1985, and that the petitioners are entitled for redetermination of the compensation on par with compensation awarded to the land, subject-matter of O.P. No. 197 of 1985.
5. The petitioners expected that the respondents would favourably act and re-determine the compensation. To thejr surprise, the first respondent issued a memo dated 9-3-1992 stating that the Collector (Social. Welfare), Nizamabad, through his reference No. HI/2080/91, dated 24-2-1991 returned the draft award sent by him for approval on the ground that the petitioners filed the certified copy of the orders in O.P. No. 197 of 1985 obtained by the petitioners therein, instead of filing a certified copy obtained by the petitioners herein. The other ground for rejecting the claim as indicated in the reference dated 24-2-1991 is that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit in terms of Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the petitioners have already availed of the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Against this order, the petitioners have preferred a writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent for redetermination of the compen-sation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in terms of the award passed in O.P. No. 197 of 1985, dated 27-11-1987, and a further direction to quash the memo No. B2/6660/90, dated 9-3-1992 issued by the first respondent, on the ground of illegality.
6. It is the endeavour of Shri S. Venkateswara Rao, counsel for the petitioners, that different compensations have been awarded to the lands covered by the same notification. When the other land owners have received sufficient compensation, irrespective of the fact whether they have carried the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or not they are entitled to seek redetermination of the compensation of their lands on par with the compensation awarded to similarly placed lands which were acquired by the same notification.
7. On the contrary, Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for the respondents, contends that when once the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acqusition Act, 1894, has been obtained by the petitioners and that having become final, the petitioners cannot seek redetermination as contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the Government pleader seems to be that in a case where a particular party has sought reference before a competent Civil Court under Section 18 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector in terms of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is not open to such party to seek redeter-mination of the compensation on the basis of award passed by the Civil Court in another O.P. subject-matter of other lands, though covered by the same notification. Precisely what he means is, once the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been obtained, it is not open to such party to seek redetermination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is only such party, which-has not obtained the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is entitled to seek redetermination under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
8. In order to appreciate this proposition, it is necessary to read with provisions contemplated under Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is extracted as under:--
"28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court:-- Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compen sation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court;
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this subsection, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2)xxxxx (3)xxxxx".
The requirement of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is two-fold. One is thefe shall be an award by the Collector and the other is the parties who claim redeter mination of their lands shall also be formed part of the same notification. Where an award is passed granting more compensation, whe ther or not a reference is sought under Section 18, the party whose lands have also been acquired by the same notication and if he is aggrieved by award of such compensation, is entitled'to make an application before the Collector within the time stipulated seeking redeterrhination under Section 28A of. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
9. The Legislature in its endeavour confers a benefit on the land owners, whose lands are notified by the same notification and who have received less compensation when compared to the compensation received by the other land owners, whose lands have also been acquired by the same notification, to seek redetermination of the amount of compensation, on the basis of the compensation awarded in other matters. Irrespective of the fact whether Section 18 reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was sought or not, the Legislature confers a benefit to the land owners for seeking redetermination on par with the compensation received by other land owners, who have received more compensation. The ground that the petitioners have availed of the benefit under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and as such they are not entitled to claim the relief under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not tenable. Courts are to interpret a provision of law as intended by the Legislature. Courts have no power to withdraw a benefit which has been given to the citizens by the Legislature. I am, therefore, not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the respondents.
10. The intricacies could be explained by stating an example:
Two persons' lands have been acquired by same notification by the Land Acquisition Authorities for a particular purpose.
Aggrieved by the award of compensation both these parties seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in different O. Ps. The Civil Court passes some award either enhancing the compensation or accepting the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Out of these two parties, who have filed separate O.Ps, one party aggrieved by the award of the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prefers an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, enhances the compensation and determines that the party is entitled to get a particular amount of compensation. The other party who has not approached the appellate Court, consequent upon the award passed by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seek redetermated of S. 28A of the Act can it be said that such party is not entitled to seek redetermination of the compensation on par with the compensation awarded by the appellate Court. The answer, in my view, undoubtedly, is 'NO'. That is to say, the party is entitled to seek redetermination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
11. Once an application is filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within the time stipulated, the question whether the party is entitled to compensation on par with the compensation awarded to some other persons, whose lands are also subject-matter of the same notification, will be subject to scrutiny by the concerned authorities. It all depends upon the proximity, potentiality and utility, which are crucial in determining the value of the land. The discretion always is given to the Land Acquisition Authorities to fix a reasonable, appropriate compensation. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in M/s. Printers House Private Limited v. Saiyadan, . Therefore, what follows is that when an application is filed seeking redetermination of compensation based on the award passed in other lands covered by the same notification, the Land Acquisition Authorities cannot reject the application on the ground that they are not entitled to seek redetermination of the value of the lands under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
11 A. In view of this discussion, the memo No. B2/6660/90, dated 9-3-1992, issued by the first respondent cannot sustain and it is accordingly quashed. Consequently, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to seek redetermination of the amount of compensation of their lands, acquired by the respondents, on par with the amount of compensation awarded to the lands, subject-matter of O.P. No. 197 of 1985. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to redetermine the compensation of the lands of the petitioners measuring Acs. 13-20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 399 to 405 and 407-A situated at Kanteswaram village, Nizamabad district, on the basis of the award passed in O. P. No. 197 of 1985, on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents states that as against the order passed in O.P. 197/1985 dated 27-11-87 an, appeal A. S. No. 30/1992 has been preferred before this court which is pending. Mere pendency of appeal in this court shall not in any manner come in the way of the respon-dents in considering the request of the petitioners for redetermination of the amount of compensation under Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is made clear that in the redetermination, pursuant to which if the petitioners get any benefit such benefit would be subject to the result of the appeal in A. S.30/1992,
13. In view of this discussion, the respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioners seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation under Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
15.Petition allowed.