Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Adapa Suresh Venkata Kumar S/O ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 August, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.17401 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 10.04.2015 in Roc.No. B/33/2005 (R & R) on the file of the 3rd respondent rejecting the request of petitioners for payment of value of Trees, Structures, Borewells, Pipes, etc., in the lands bearing Sy.No.720 admeasuring Ac. 5.52 cents and Sy.No. 718/5 admeasuring Ac. 4.55 cents situated at Polavaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.12.2014 and pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation in respect of trees, crops, borwells, pipes, etc., in the above lands of the petitioners as assessed by Joint Inspection Committee; Award Costs and pass such other orders".
The case of the petitioners in brief is that they are the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac. 5.52 cents in Sy.No.720 and an extent of Ac. 4.55 cents in Sy.No. 718/5 of Polavaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. The 2nd respondent issued notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land for the purpose of Polavaram Project. A Draft Notification was issued dated 02.12.2005 and Draft Declaration was issued on 15.12.2005. The 3rd respondent fixed the compensation for the land acquired at Rupees One lakh per acre, which was objected by the petitioners and other villagers, whose land was acquired in the said acquisition. In view of the protest by the farmers the 1st respondent constituted District Level Negotiation Committee with the 2nd respondent as its Chairman. The petitioners approached the said committee for negotiating a reasonable rate for the land acquired. The MSM,J 2 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 3rd respondent has passed Consent Award No. 20 of 2006, dated 10.03.2008 fixing the compensation at Rs. 1,85,000/- per acre stating that compensation for trees and structures would be decided later.
While the land acquisition proceedings were pending, there was a joint inspection of the land which was sought to be acquired and the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued valuation report on the value of existence of trees, other structures and their valuation. The Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the Award, did not take into consideration the joint inspection report and passed Award. Though there are two bore wells and several fruit bearing trees in their land, no compensation has been awarded to them. On coming to know about the same, the petitioners made a representation dated 22.12.2014 for payment of compensation for the trees and structures, borewells and pipes in the land of the petitioners, which was acquired. When no steps have been taken, yet and the representation of the petitioners was not considered, the petitioners approached this court and filed W.P.No.1617 of 2015 and this Court passed an order dated 30.01.2015, directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 22.12.2014 for grant of compensation by following due procedure stipulated by law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pursuant to the direction of this court, the impugned order dated 10.04.2015 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioners for payment of compensation holding that compensation paid earlier vide Consent Award dated 10.03.2008 was a package deal and that no further compensation is admissible under the negotiation rules. The said order is now challenged before this court on the MSM,J 3 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 ground that consent Award passed is only for the land and it was agreed that the value of the trees, structures etc., shall be paid after receipt of the valuation report, but the respondents without taking into consideration of the last paragraph of the Award, rejected the request of the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same and also direct the respondents to pay compensation for the trees, structures etc., based on the valuation report submitted by the Joint Inspection Committee.
The 3rd respondent filed counter, denying the material allegations, while admitting that an Award was passed based on the compensation fixed by negotiation by the Expert Committee. It is the specific contention of the respondents that as per the conditions in Form-III Agreement, Package deal represents the market value of the land including structure value, crops value, tree value, additional market value, solatium and interest if any. In the land acquisition cases the value of trees, structures etc., will be obtained and placed before the D.L.N.C for consideration whether to fix compensation payable for the land is inclusive of all benefits or exclusive of trees value and structure value etc., as the case may be. But it shall not be presumed that since the value of trees etc., are obtained they are only for payment to the land owners along with the land value, but not otherwise.
Similarly in the light of instructions issued in CCLA's G1- 1161/09, dated 16.07.1999 the compensation cannot be awarded to Wells, Bore wells, Irrigation Wells and pipe lines in agricultural land. If the compensation is awarded, the same would be contrary to the decision reported in 1996(3) ALT-1102 and amount if any paid should be recovered from the erring officials. Therefore the respondents are MSM,J 4 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 not under obligation to pay compensation to the trees, structures as claimed by the petitioners.
It is further contended that the land owners have filed P.L.C.No.1185/2 before the Chairman, West Godavari District Legal Services Authority, Eluru with a request for ordering higher compensation towards the land value and compensation for standing crops, trees etc., and after examination, the District Legal Services Authority closed the case without conceding any of the demands. Again the petitioners have filed W.P.No.1617 of 2015 before this court to consider the representation dated 22.12.2014 made by the petitioners for grant of compensation for trees, structures, crop, borewells etc., and this court passed order by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.12.2014 filed by the petitioners for grant of compensation duly following the procedure stipulated by law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly the orders were passed by the 3rd respondent vide Roc.No.B-33/2005 (R & R) dated 10.04.2015 rejecting payment of compensation. Therefore, rejection of compensation to the land, trees, structures etc., is in accordance with law.
The 3rd respondent would contend that though compensation to be paid to the petitioners under different heads and the calculation was arrived at Rs. 1,65,388/- per acre, but the amount was awarded at the rate of 1,85,000/- per acre as the District Level Negotiation Committee (in short 'DLNC") enhanced the compensation as against the compensation worked out at Rs. 1,65,388/-. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the value for the trees, structures and etc., and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
MSM,J 5 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 During hearing Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that when the Consent Award was passed agreeing to pay compensation separately for the value of the trees and value of structures, at later point of time as per the value statement of the concerned departments, paid compensation to similarly situated persons of Jangareddigudem and refusal to pay compensation for the trees, on the ground that it is package deal with the DLNC and an Award was passed by the concerned authorities, is illegal and amounts to discriminating the petitioners from land owners of Jangareddigudem, whose lands were acquired for the purpose of Polavaram Project and requested to issue a direction, keeping in view of the last sentence of the Consent Award and grant of compensation to the similarly situated persons of Jangareddigudem, whose land was acquired for the said project.
Whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition disputed the claim only on the ground that it is a package deal and it is inclusive of compensation for total trees, structures etc., and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
In view of the rival contentions, it is necessary to advert to the Consent Award No. 20 of 2006, dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer. The relevant un- numbered Paragraph at Page No. 7 of the Award reads as follows:
The Settlement of compensation for the land to be acquired at reasonable rate through the District Level Negotiation Committee on 26.03.2007 District Level negotiation Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector has fixed a rate of Rs. 1,85,000/- per acre excluding other benefits.
Whereas at the end of the Award at under the caption "Funds" reads as follows :-
MSM,J 6 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 The sufficient funds are being releasing by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dowleswaram to Pay and Account Officer, Eluru, through LOC. The expenditure of Rs. 67,48,800/- (Rupees Sixty seven lakhs forty eight thousand eight hundred only) towards Land Value, was met out of the LOC released from the Pay and Account Officer, through the cheque pads supplied by him and paid to the above awardees of Polavaram Village. The remaining Values i.e Trees Value and Structural Values will be paid later after receipt Value Statements from the concerned Departments only".
In last Paragraph of the Consent Award itself, the State agreed to pay compensation for the trees and structure value after receipt of valuation statement from the concerned authorities. Accordingly valuation statement was submitted by the concerned authorities to an extent of Ac. 36.48 cents and the petitioners land is shown in Column No.2 against the Sl.No. 1, 2 and 3 assessing the value payable for the trees, structures etc., in Column No. 24 of the Value Report and for Neredu-1, Neam-10, Teak-1, Ari-1, Tumma-13, Regu-4, Bamboo-25, total compensation payable was Rs. 1,63,156/- and for Palmyrah-125 trees an amount of Rs. 52,400/- is payable and total it comes to Rs. 2,15,556/-. Similarly an amount of Rs. 5,346/- is assessed for the crop and finally Rs. 59,569/- is assessed as value of the crop payable. Despite receipt of the valuation statement, the 3rd respondent did not pay compensation for the trees, structures on receipt of the valuation statement as agreed in the last paragraph of the consent award. Thereupon the petitioners made representation dated 22.12.2014 to the District Collector, but no action was taken. Thereupon a writ petition has been filed and pursuant to the orders passed therein, the impugned order is passed.
The main contention of the respondents is that the consent Award is inclusive of value of the trees, structures, but a close MSM,J 7 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 scrutiny of the last paragraph of the award, it is clear that acquisition authority agreed to pay value of the trees, structures etc., after receipt of the valuation statement from the concerned authorities. If really it is a part and parcel of the compensation agreed to be paid as per the negotiation committee, question of specific mention regarding the agreement to pay compensation for trees, structures does not arise. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that package deal by fixing compensation at Rs. 1,85,000/- is inclusive of compensation payable for trees, structures etc., cannot be countenanced. Last sentence of the Award itself suffice to conclude that the acquisition authority agreed to pay value for trees, structures etc., subsequently, but not paid and passed an award/ impugned order on the premise that Rs. 1,85,000/- is inclusive of value of compensation payable for the trees and structures, which is apparently erroneous. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition in support of her contention, she relied on a decision of the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad in Land Acquisition Officer (Special Deputy Collector) Vs. J. Shadraik and others1 .
The above decision has no application to the present facts for the reason that the court held enhancement of compensation for the well is illegal, but did not hold that award of separate compensation for the well is not bad.
In view of the last sentence in the Award, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, while holding that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation as fixed by the concerned departments payable to the 1 1996(3)-ALT-1102 MSM,J 8 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 petitioners as per the valuation statements referred supra with interest.
Hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus while directing the respondents to pay the value of the trees, crop and structures etc., as fixed by the concerned departments in the valuation statement together with interest at 15% p.a till payment of compensation amount for trees, crop and structures, as the 3rd respondent being a public authority has failed to discharge its duty, consequently the respondents are directed to pay the said amount to the petitioners within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 10.08.2021 KK MSM,J 9 W.P.No.17401 of 2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.17401 OF 2015 Date: 10.08.2021 Note: Issue C.C by 20.08.2021.
B/o KK