Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S.A. Nazeer vs The Land Acquisition Officer And Anr. on 24 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 A I H C 4930, (2002) 1 LACC 255 (2001) 2 ANDHWR 489, (2001) 2 ANDHWR 489
JUDGMENT
1. As common questions of fact and law arise in these civil revision petitions, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The factual background of these cases shows how the members of the legal fraternity are conducting themselves and ruining the interest of their clients. The present day melody is that people obtaining degrees from the mushroom law colleges that have come up having entered the profession, have neither inclination to discharge their professional obligations to their clients nor inclination to learn the law of the land which is a dynamic weapon in providing justice to the needy.
3. The lands of the petitioners along with others seem to have been acquired for construction of bus depot for A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation") at Piler in the year 1978. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. Aggrieved by the award, land losers seem to have filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer contending that the compensation awarded was meager and requested him to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") to the civil court for determination of compensation payable for the lands that were acquired. The petitioners also submit that they filed such application and received the compensation under protest. But ultimately the claims of the petitioners were not referred to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. The O.Ps. filed by other claimants were allowed and the compensation was enhanced considerably.
4. Aggrieved by the said award, the Corporation seems to have filed A.S. No. No. 1315 of 1997 on the file of this court against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Piler in O.P. No. 72 of 1996 relating to one Reddepa whose lands to the extent of Ac.3-14 cents in S. No. 142/1 of Piler were acquired. During the tendency of that appeal, having come to know that the appeal was filed and pending, S.A. Nazeer, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 4842 of 1999, Fathima Bee, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 4861 of 2000 and Be Beejan, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 4786 of 2000 filed C.M.P. No. 22242 of 1998, C.M.P. No. 22243 of 1998 and C.M.P. No. 22590 of 1998 respectively seeking permission of this court to come on record as party respondents to the proceedings in the said A.S. No. 1315 of 1997 and sought for a direction to the Corporation for payment of enhanced compensation in the interest of justice. A Division Bench of this court on 3-11-1998 disposed of that appeal along with the said C.M.Ps. It is not known how those petitions were maintainable, as they did not question the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in not referring their claims to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. Be that as it may, the Division Bench dealing with the said C.M.Ps. observed:
"........they have got right and interest in the land that was acquired and now in the compensation to be disbursed to the 1st respondent-claimant in this appeal. If they have right to claim compensation or apportionment of the same, it is open for them to file applications before the Court below within 60 days from today. If such applications are filed, the Court below shall treat them as applications under Section 30 of the Act and decide the right of those claimants and disburse the amounts to them in accordance with law within three months thereafter."
5. From the above order, it is seen that this court passed the said order under an impression that there was a dispute with regard to the title between the first respondent-claimant (Reddeppa) in A.S. No. 1315 of 1997 and these petitioners. But actually that was not the case. At least even after getting the certified copy also, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not take necessary steps to get the order of this court corrected. Thereafter S.A. Nazeer, Fatima Bee and Be Beejan filed I.A. Nos. 123, 124 and 125 of 1999 respectively in O.P. No. 71 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler seeking enhancement of compensation. It is not known how these applications could be filed in the O.P. relating to the said Reddeppa who had nothing to do with the lands of the petitioners. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler dismissed those applications holding that the petitioners obtained the order in O.P. No. 72 of 1996 but they filed those I.As. in O.P. No. 71 of 1996 and on the ground that the petitioners did not bring on record the necessary parties against whom applications were made and from whom they were seeking share in the compensation amount. Unfortunately though the case of the petitioners was covered by Section 28-A of the Act, the members of the noble profession bungled their case and threw them into darkness.
6. From the factual narration, it is seen that the petitioners are not disputing the title of the said Redeppa, the claimant in that O.P.(O.P. No. 72 of 1996). Admittedly an extent of Ac.0.28 cents of land covered by S. No. 538/1-B owned by Fatima Bee, an extent of Ac.0.52 cents of land covered by S. No. 145/2B/2B owned by Bee Beejan and an extent of 0.76 cents of land covered by S. No. 145/LB/2C and another Ac.0.83 cents of land in S. No. 538/2 of Piler owned by Abdul Nazeer were acquired and these lands were covered by award No. 4 of 1980 dated 23-5-1980, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as stated supra. Section 28-A of the Act reads:
"Re-determination of the amount of compensation on then basis of the award of the court:- (1) 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 compensation payable to them may be re-determined 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 sub-section the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require 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"
7. According to the petitioners, they (petitioners) filed applications seeking reference to the civil court, but the fact remains that their cases were not referred to the civil court for enhancement of compensation. In the cases where the matters were referred to the civil court, the civil court enhanced compensation and in appeal the compensation awarded by the civil court was reduced to some extent. But the fact remains that this court granted higher compensation than what was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under those circumstances a right is given to the land losers whose claims were not referred to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the court under Section 28-A of the Act by approaching the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court. On receipt of the application under sub-section (1), the Collector is under an obligation to conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants under Sub-Section (2). Under sub-section (3) any person who has not accepted the award and under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for 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 such reference under Section 18.
8. Though the petitioners have been pursuing their remedy in a wrong forum in a wrong manner they have been agitating for the enhanced compensation after the civil court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said award No. 4 of 1980. From that time onwards, the appeals filed by the Corporation were pending. As the law is well-settled on the aspect that in computing the period of limitation any time taken by the party in pursuing a remedy in wrong forum has to be excluded, I am inclined to direct the petitioners to file an application before the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) for re-determination of the compensation payable to them for the lands belonging to them that were acquired as per the compensation given by this court in A.S. No. 1315 of 1997, dated 3-11-1998 forthwith. On receipt of such applications, the Collector shall conduct an inquiry as is required in this case in the factual background and pass award as contemplated under Section 28-A of the Act. He shall communicate any award passed by him by R.P.A.D. to the petitioners so as to enable them to seek reference to the civil court if the award passed aggrieves them.
9. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.