Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nekkalapudi Rama Krishna Pratap vs Arbitrator District Collector, Eluru ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010473702008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3541]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.187, 190, 659, 660, 662, 669, 670,
671 & 674 of 2008 and 573 of 2009
Between:
1. GUDAPATI SREERAMA MURTHY, S/O. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CULTIVATION R/O. BADAMPUDI VILLAGE UNGUTUR MANDAL
W.G.DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE ARBITRATOR DT COLLECTOR ELURU ANR, AT ELURU
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITYLAND ACQUISITIONCUM, RDO.,
W.G.DISTRICT AT ELURU
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 142 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 13l days in filing the main appeal IA NO: 3 OF 2008(CMAMP 460 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fix an early date of hearing of appeal 2 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR APPEALS 3 The Court made the following Common Judgment:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) All these Appeals arise out of a common acquisition award and raise similar questions, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
2. An extent of Ac.43.89 cents of land, situated in various survey numbers of Badmpudi Village, Unguturu Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of formation of a four-lane road from Km 80 to 152 of National Highway No.5. This acquisition was conducted as per the requisition given by the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Rajamundry.
3. The acquisition was done under the provisions of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 [for short "the Act, 1956"]. After following the necessary procedure, the land was acquired and an award, dated 19.03.2003 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Eluru, in award No.20/2003. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, reference to the Arbitrator was sought for enhancement of the said compensation. Upon reference, the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, West Godavari, passed an award, vide R.Dis.No.26/2005, dated 29.09.2005. The Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, West Godavari, after summarizing the main grounds raised by the affected persons had held that the market value of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was a fair market value and refused to interfere with the award, dated 19.03.2003. Aggrieved by this award, the 4 appellants herein moved various original petitions, before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, under Sections 30 & 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26/1996).
4. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari, after hearing both sides, had enhanced the compensation by directing re-fixation of the market value from Rs.1,40,000/- per acre to Rs.1,45,000/- per acre and for payment of certain consequential benefits including interest in term of Section- 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short "the Act, 1894"] as well as solatium @ 15% of the market value.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, dated 22.01.2007, in all the appeals, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present set of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
6. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there was a consistent failure of the principles of natural justice in as much as the District Collector did not give an opportunity of hearing after the claim petitions had been filed and that the Principal District Judge, West Godavari also disregarded this ground, when it was brought to the notice of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari that appropriate opportunity was not given to the appellants.
7. However, Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants could not place any material before this Court to demonstrate that 5 such an issue had been raised before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari and had been ignored by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept this contention.
8. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants would also raise an additional ground that the appellants had not been granted solatium of 30% of the market value, as required under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and only solatium of 15% of the market value was granted by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari and the same is not in accord with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors1, read with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors2.
9. Section 3-J of the Act, 1956, prohibits the granting of certain consequential benefits wherever land is acquired under the Act, 1956. The vires of Section 3-J of the Act, 1956 came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering the submissions made on both sides had held as follows:-
"Paragraph No.52:- There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed 1 (2019) 9 SCC 304 2 2025 SCC online SC 235 6 solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1-A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3-J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.9599 of 2019 is dismissed."
10. The National Highway Authority of India had subsequently moved a clarification petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for a clarification as to whether this Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would apply retrospectively or whether it would apply prospectively from the date of the said Order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors2 held as follows: -
Paragraph No.17:- Regardless, the prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) should be deemed to operate prospectively only. However, in our considered view. granting such a clarification would effectively nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh (supra) intended to provide, as the prospective operation of it would restore the state of affairs to the same position as it was before the decision was rendered.
Paragraph No.18:- We say so for the reason that the broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh (supra) was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by Section 33 of the NHAI Act which led to the unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The impact of Section 3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from the date of 01.01.2015 As a result two classes of landowners emerged, devoid of any intelligible differentia those whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and those whose lands were acquired otherwise.
Paragraph No.19:- This must be viewed in the light of the principle that when a provision is declared unconstitutional, any continued disparity strikes at the core of Article 14 and must be rectified, particularly when such disparity affects only a select group. To illustrate, rendering the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) as prospective would create a situation where a 2 2025 SCC online SC 235 7 landowner whose land was acquired on 31 12 2014 would be denied the benefit of 'solatium' and 'interest whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very next day. 01.01.2015-the date on which the Ordinance was promulgated, to read the 2013 Act into the NHAI Act, would be entitled to these statutory benefits.
Paragraph No.25:- In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the Applicant. NHAI. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (supra) regarding the beneficial nature of granting solatium' and 'interest while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia Consequently. we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application."
11. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in as much as no claim had been made before the District Collector-Arbitrator for solatium or interest and the same cannot be raised at a later stage. A similar contention had also been raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid Judgment and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering the said contention had held that in the normal course such a contention would be upheld but since the Government itself had expressed its intention of paying interest and solatium for any acquisition between 1997 and 2015, had held that such interest and solatium would be payable.
12. In the present case, the Principal District Judge, West Godavari had awarded interest as per the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 1894 and a solatium of 15% against the solatium of 30% fixed under the provisions of the Act, 1894.
13. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by affirming the Orders of the Principal District 8 Judge, West Godavari with the modification that the appellants would be entitled to an additional solatium of 15% on the market value fixed in the Orders of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari along with applicable interest on such enhanced solatium.
14. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Dated: 01.07.2025 BSM 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.187, 190, 659, 660, 662, 669, 670, 671 & 674 of 2008 and 573 of 2009 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 01.07.2025 BSM