Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rapuru Penchalaiah Died, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.2694 OF 2021
Rapuru Penchalaiah (died) rep. by his LR
daughter Uddiboina Subbalakshmumma,
W/ Subba Reddy, Age : 56 years, Occ:
Housewife, Teluguraipuram Village,
Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District
and 107 others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented
by its Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
and two others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP for Land Acquisition
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not increasing the amount for Rs.18,000/- per one acre as per the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.118/1982 dated 27.09.1988 in the Re-determination Award No.9/28A/2007-2008, dated 02.02.2008 and in the P.V. Proposals dated 10.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and also in violation of the procedure u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and Page 2 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners @ Rs.18,000/- for one acre as per the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.118/1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988 with all statutory benefits ..."
2. Averments in affidavit, in brief, are that:
(a) Petitioners 108 in number filed the above writ petition. One Boyyala Guravaiah deposed the affidavit.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as „the Act‟) was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 22.12.1977. After following the procedure, Award No.12/80-81, dated 29.12.1980, was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.7,800/- per acre in respect of wet land and Rs.4,600/- per acre in respect of dry land. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded solatium at 15%. Some of the claimants received the compensation amount, under protest, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Reference was made and the same was numbered as O.P.No.118 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Court, Kadapa. Reference Court by order dated 27.09.1988, enhanced the market value and also granted other statutory benefits i.e. solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12%, Page 3 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 interest @ 9% for the 1st year from the date of award and 15% afterwards.
(b) After the order of reference court, petitioners made application under Section 28-A of the Act to respondent No.3. Since, the respondent No.3 is not acting upon the applications made by the petitioners, petitioners filed W.P.No.3415 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed on 18.03.2009, directing to pay compensation, as decided by the Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988.
(c) Respondent No.3 prepared the statement showing P.V. proposals relating to re-determination amount of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, as per the order passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988 and passed award No.9/28A/2007- 2008, dated 02.02.2008. Respondent No.3 while passing award under Section 28-A of the Act, has not redetermined the amount as per the judgment L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988. Aggrieved by the said action, petitioners filed the above writ petition. Page 4 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3. It was contended inter-alia that:
(a) Vakamada Village of Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is one among the submerged villages, under the foreshore waters of Somasila project. Acquisition Department furnished particulars to acquire land of an extent of Ac.300.24 cents pertaining to Reach No.XIV of Vakamada Village, Erstwhile Sidhout Taluk, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was approved and published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 22.12.1977. After following the procedure, Award No.12/1980-81, dated 29.12.1980 was passed. All the awardees received compensation. Some of the awardees filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the applications were referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, for adjudication. Reference Court enhanced the compensation by judgment dated 27.09.1988.
(b) The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer filed appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the order passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988. The Page 5 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 said appeal was dismissed. One R.Penchalaiah and 153 others of Kaluvai Village, Reach No.XIV filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act, through their Advocate dated 03.01.1989, before the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.01.1989. The said applicants also filed W.P.No.12943 of 2004, with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider their applications. The said writ petition was disposed on 05.10.2004. Later, Contempt Case No.604 of 2007 was filed.
(c) Section 28-A applications were verified, and it was found that 103 applications are genuine. Notices have been served to all Section 28-A applicants. The claimants attended the enquiry on various dates and their statements were recorded. Award No.9/28-A/2007-08 was passed relating to re-determination of compensation.
(d) In L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch cases, petitioners‟ Advocate requested on behalf of his clients to reduce the enhanced compensation awarded by the Court by 10%. Accordingly, authorities reduced the amount, and the reduced amount was paid to the applicants under Section 18 Page 6 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 of the Act. Accordingly compensation was redetermined under Section 28-A of the Act vide award No.9/28-A/2007-08 dated 02.02.2008.
(e) The claimants under Section 28-A of the Act were not turned up before the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, to receive cheques for amount awarded. The amount was deposited and later it was lapsed during the financial year 2009-10.
(f) Petitioners filed W.P.No.3415 of 2008, to declare the orders passed by the Land acquisition Officer vide proceedings dated 24.01.2008 under Section 28A of the Act, is illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2009. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet filed review petition vide WPMP No.21680 of 2009, meanwhile petitioners filed Contempt Case No.992 of 2009. The High Court dismissed the review petition on 19.04.2010 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to comply with the orders in W.P.No.3415 of 2008.
(g) In compliance of the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.3415 of 2008, P.V. proposals for an amount of Page 7 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 Rs.28,72,548/- was submitted to the Special Deputy Collector and proposals were approved by the Special Collector on 10.10.2010. Award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 was passed and the statutory benefits have been calculated on par with the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988. In view of the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.3415 of 2008 dated 18.03.2009, earlier Award No.9/28-A/2007-08 dated 02.02.2008 was cancelled. Consequently, Award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011, dated 12.10.2010, was passed and compensation was paid to the petitioners. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that while passing award under Section 28-A of the Act, the authority has not redetermined the compensation, as per the orders passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988.
Page 8 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
6. Learned Government Pleader per contra, would contend that initially Award No.9/28-A/2007-08, dated 02.02.2008 was passed. Later pursuant to order in W.P.No.3415 of 2008 dated 18.03.2009, Award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 was passed re-determining the compensation, as per the enhancement made by the reference court.
7. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief as sought for?
2) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer re-
determined the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with order of the reference Court in LAOP No.218 of 1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988?
3) Whether the awardees, in an award passed under Sec 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled to more benefits than the benefits awarded under Reference under Section 18 of the Act?
8. At the outset, it is very unfortunate that while filing the writ petition, some of the petitioners were shown as dead and they were represented by their legal representatives, which is Page 9 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 unknown to law. For example, Petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 etc. were shown as died, represented by their legal representatives in the cause title. If any person, entitled to any statutory benefit or intends to enforce his statutory right is dead by the date of initiation of proceedings, the legal representative of the said person will file necessary application and later approach the Court by stating that the deceased person is entitled to the benefit and since he/she is dead, the person approaching is entitled to the benefit being the legal representative. In such an event, the cause title should be, the person approaching the Court shall be arrayed as petitioner (be it wife, son or daughter of the deceased). In the affidavit, the details qua the claim shall be mentioned.
9. The cause title, in the case at hand, would reflect the dead person and then representing the dead person. Showing dead person as petitioner in the cause title, represented by son/daughter or wife, in the opinion of this Court, such course is impermissible. In fact, writ petition, itself, is liable to dismissed on that ground. However, since pleadings were completed, this Court intends to proceed further and adjudicate the issues on merits.
Page 10 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
10. As seen from the pleadings and material available on record, in respect of the lands acquired belonged to petitioners and some of petitioners predecessors in interest, award No.12/1980-81, dated 29.12.1980 was passed. Some of the awardees sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the same to the Sub-ordinate Court, Kadapa, under Section 18 of the Act. By order dated 27.09.1988 in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch, the reference Court enhanced the compensation.
11. Reference Court awarded solatium at 30%; Additional market value @ 12%; interest @ 9% for first year from the date of award and 15% thereafter till payment.
12. Initially, the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet authority passed award No.9/28A/2007-2008 dated 02.02.2008 under Section 28-A of the Act. Since the authority failed to re-determine compensation as per the judgment of reference Court, petitioners filed W.P.No.3415 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed on 18.03.2009. Petitioners also filed Contempt Case No.992 of 2009. The Special Deputy Collector filed Page 11 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 review petition, vide W.P.M.P.No.21680 of 2009. The review petition was dismissed.
13. Later, the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet passed award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 re-determining the compensation as per the orders in LAOP. In the award dated 12.10.2010, the Land Acquisition Officer granted all the benefits as was granted by reference court in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits such as 15% solatium, 12% additional market value and interest on additional market value. In fact, the case at hand 12% additional market value was granted from 4(1) notification i.e. 22.12.1977 to 29.12.1980 (1102 days). However, without noticing the same, petitioners sought benefit.
15. Section 28A of the Act was introduced by Act 68 of 1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the said provision are re-produced below: Page 12 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 "Considering that the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised by the comparatively affluent landowners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference court under Section 18 of the Act."
16. The three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumari and Ors.1, held thus:
"Section 28A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief to the inarticulate and poor people who are not able to take advantage of right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In relation to beneficent legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of the legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28A should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the object underlying the said provision."
17. The relief sought in the writ petition that the petitioners are entitled to 15% solatium and 12% of additional market value and interest on solatium, in the opinion of this Court, 1 AIR 1995 SC 2259 Page 13 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 the petitioners are not entitled, since the reference Court did not grant such reliefs while answering reference under Section 18 of the Act. Whatever the benefits granted by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act were extended, while passing award under Section 28A of the Act, to the awardees.
18. Petitioners by filing writ petition are claiming the reliefs which were not granted to the claimants in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch pursuant to Award dated 12.10.2010 passed under Section 28A of the Act.
19. Petitioners filed writ petition in the year 2021 i.e. after 11 years of award passed by 4th respondent re-determining the compensation under Section 28A of the Act. The affidavit is silent about the petitioners failure to approach the Court at the earliest point of time. No reason was offered in the affidavit qua non approaching the Court within reasonable period. The Writ petition, in fact, is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of latches also.
Page 14 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
20. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director Vs. K. Thangappan and another2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under;
"Delay and laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party....."
21. However, since the petitioners are claiming benefits as per the judgment of reference Court, this Court is not going into latches aspect.
22. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the composite High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Musalikoppu Janardhana3. In the said case, while re-determining the compensation, the authority restricted the interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of their applications under Section 28A of the Act and to 15% per annum from the expiry of one year and till the date of payment. Since interest was restricted while re-determining 2 (2006) 4 SCC 322 3 2009 (2) ALD 567 Page 15 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 the compensation, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein. After considering the statement of objects of Section 28A of the Act and Pradeep Kumari's case (supra-1), the Division Bench of the composite High Court, eventually upheld the order in the writ petition and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the State. Thus, the facts in M.Janardhana's are different from the facts at the case at hand. Hence, the ratio will not apply to the facts of this case. Awardees under Section 28-A of the Act, at no stretch of imagination, get relief beyond the relief granted in LAOP, reference under Section 18 of the Act.
23. It is not the case of petitioners herein that in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch, the petitioners therein were granted the benefits and while re-determining the compensation under Section 28A of the Act, 4th respondent did not extend those benefits. Whatever the benefits conferred on those petitioners in LAOP No.118 of 1982 were extended to awardees while passing award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 under Section 28A of the Act. Page 16 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
24. The other aspect of the case is if really petitioners were deprived of their statutory benefit, in terms of reference court judgment, they could have availed the remedy under Section 28A(3) of the Act.
25. Section 28-A (3) of the Act, which is relevant is extracted herewith:
"Any person who has not accepted the award under sub- section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18."
26. A perusal of extracted Rule 3 of Section 28-A of the Act, would manifest that if a person is aggrieved by the award under Section 28-A(2) of the Act, he can make a written application to the Collector. In such a case, the provisions of 18 to 28 may apply so far as may be. Under Section 18 of the Act, an application has to be filed within six weeks, if the person is present or represented before the Collector at the time of the award or six weeks from the date of Collector‟s award. In other cases, two months from the date of service of notice, from the District Collector under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Under Section 28-A of the Act, after the reference made Page 17 of 18 SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021 by the Civil Court, the other awardee has to make a written application seeking re-determination, within a period of three months from the date of award of the Civil Court.
27. The case at hand, award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 was passed under Section 28-A of the Act, on 12.10.2010. In fact, as observed supra, award dated 12.10.2010 was passed in consonance with the order of the reference Court in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988. If petitioners are aggrieved that the compensation was not properly re- determined in award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010, they would have sought reference under Rule 3 of Section 28-A. However, without moving their little finger, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, almost 11 years thereafter. In the affidavit, there is no plea regarding the petitioners in not approaching the Court within a reasonable time.
28. This Court is not non-suiting the petitioners on the ground that petitioners failed to avail alternative remedy. In fact, this Court is only indicating that petitioner, indeed, got remedy under Section 28-A(3) of the Act.
Page 18 of 18
SRS J W.P.No.2694 of 2021
29. As narrated supra, award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 in consonance with the judgment in LAOP No.118 of 1982 and batch.
30. In view of the discussion made supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 5th December, 2023 PVD