Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
U Sreedevi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19466 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in refusing to refer the case of petitioner to Civil Court for enhancement of compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.13 cents in S.No.110-A2 of Nandalapadu Village, Tadipatri Mandal, which was acquired vide award No.03/2012 dated 25.10.2012 and informing such refusal vide endorsement in Rc.No.D1LA/2124/2012 dated 21.10.2019 as illegal and violative of the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (fort short, 'the LA Act') and for a consequential direction.
2. The case of petitioner is thus:
(a) The petitioner is the absolute owner of Ac.0.15 cents in S.No.110-A2 of Nandalapadu Village, Tadipatri Mandal. The 3rd respondent, on the requisition of 4th respondent to construct railway over-bridge, issued notification vide District Gazette No.ATR 48/2010 under Section 4(1) dated 09.03.2010 and got published in newspapers to the effect that an extent of Ac.1.46 cents was proposed to be acquired which includes Ac.0.15 cents of the land of the petitioner. Pursuant to the notification, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, a declaration was published on 14.10.2010 and on 28.10.2010. As per the notification, though Ac.0.13 cents belonging UDPR,J 2 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 to petitioner was sought to be acquired, however, the remaining Ac.0.02 cents of the petitioner was also taken possession.
(b) The further case of petitioner is that no notice was served on the petitioner under Section 9(1) of 9(3) of the LA Act enabling her to participate in the award enquiry. It appears without the knowledge and to the dismay of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the award No.3/2012 dated 25.10.2012 fixing the compensation of Rs.7,84,875/- in respect of Ac.0.13 cents. Before passing the award, the petitioner's statement was recorded wherein the petitioner specifically prayed the 3rd respondent to award the compensation @ Rs.6.00 lakhs per cent as the land is situated in commercial area.
(c) Since there was no communication from 3rd respondent, the petitioner addressed a representation to 3rd respondent dated 11.07.2013. Since there was no response, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 19.02.2014 to send a copy of the award. The petitioner came to know that prior to her issuing legal notice, the 3rd respondent basing on her representation dated 11.07.2013 addressed a letter to 4th respondent vide Rc.No.D1LA/2142/2008 dated 12.07.2013 requesting him to release the amounts immediately to the petitioner for acquisition of her land of Ac.0.15 cents. While so, a copy of the award was sent to the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.04.2014 through her counsel requesting the 3rd respondent to refer her matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. As there was no response, the petitioner had to file PLC No.16/2015 on the file of Mandal Legal UDPR,J 3 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 Services, Gooty, praying the authorities to see that her amount was paid to her. As there was no response from the respondents, the said case was closed in 2016. In the PLC, the petitioner specifically mentioned that her case may be referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act.
(d) The further case of petitioner is that though 3rd respondent addressed letter to 4th respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner, as stated supra, for two years no action was taken. The 3rd respondent addressed another letter dated 22.06.2015 to release the amount immediately for payment of compensation to petitioner. The petitioner also made a representation to 2nd respondent on 02.07.2015 requesting to pay the compensation amount and refer her case for enhancement to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. On prolonged representations, finally an amount of Rs.7,84,875/- was paid to the petitioner on 23.08.2016 for Ac.0.13 cents and the petitioner received the aforesaid amount under protest.
(e) The 2nd respondent again addressed a letter vide Rc.No.B/2142/2008 dated 22.06.2018 requesting him to deposit Rs.2,85,962/- towards compensation for Ac.0.02 cents of the land. Finally, after considering the repeated requests of the petitioner for payment of higher compensation to be determined under Section 18 of the LA Act, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gooty under Section 18 for proper determination of the value of the land of the petitioner vide Rc.No.D1LA/2142/2012 dated 25.06.2019. The petitioner was therefore expecting that she would UDPR,J 4 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 receive notice from the Court. However, she received an endorsement of 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.D1LA/2142/2012 stating as if the petitioner applied to refer the matter to Civil Court on 29.06.2015 i.e., after lapse of considerable time and as such the same cannot be referred to Civil Court since the award was passed on 25.10.2012 as the petitioner's request for reference was time barred.
(f) The endorsement of 3rd respondent is wholly illegal and unsustainable for the reason that, after the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 2012, the petitioner made repeated requests for referring the matter under Section 18 and she specifically pleaded during the course of enquiry that she was entitled to compensation @ Rs.6.00 lakhs per cent. Thereafter, she made several representations requesting them to refer the matter to Civil Court. The award copy was also furnished to petitioner only after her filing application under RTI Act. The 3rd respondent having acknowledged receipt of her repeated representations to refer the matter to Civil Court rejected her request which was already referred to the Civil Court by his predecessor. The Civil Court returned the matter for want of relevant material which has to be furnished by resubmitting the file. Instead of doing it, the 3rd respondent rejected the matter on the ground that the petition was a belated one. Even though the land was taken from the petitioner by the respondents in 2012, the compensation was paid to her only in 2016 without interest or damages. Further, the acquittance register would show that the amount was received by the petitioner under protest. For all these reasons, there is no justification on the UDPR,J 5 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 part of the respondents to reject her request for referring the matter to Civil Court. The petitioner is old lady aged 92 years and suffering from old age ailments and she is unable to reap the fruits of her property.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appeared for 4th respondent. No counter is filed.
4. Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
5. While severely fulminating the endorsement dated 21.10.2019 issued by 3rd respondent mentioning that the application of the petitioner was woefully barred by the limitation, learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the application to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the LA Act was well within time, but the 3rd respondent without considering the factual background of the matter such as non-serving of the copy of award under Section 12 of LA Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and non-considering several representations made by the petitioner for referring her case to Civil Court, has erroneously held in his endorsement that the petitioner submitted her application with a delay of 997 days which is palpably false. In expatiation, learned counsel would argue that a duty is cast on the LAO under Section 12(2) to issue notice of his award to the UDPR,J 6 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 persons interested who were not present personally or represented by their representatives when the award was made. It is only when such a notice was issued, the time for making an application to refer the matter to Civil Court would commence. Referring to Section 18(2)(b) (as amended by A.P. Act XX of 1959) learned counsel would submit that the person interested in award shall submit an application to the LAO within two months from the date of service of the notice by the Collector (LAO) under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. He would thus argue that the two months period for filing application commences only from the following day of receiving notice from the Collector (LAO) and not before. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that in the instant case, since inception, it is the categorical contention of the petitioner that she is an octogenarian aged lady and she did not participate herself or through her representative in the award proceedings and the copy of the award or contents of the award were not furnished to her as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act and it is only after her sending a letter dated 19.02.2014 through her counsel by enclosing a postal order worth Rs.150/- that the 3rd respondent made her available a copy of award on 28.03.2014. Learned counsel would submit that within one week thereafter i.e., on 04.04.2014 the petitioner sent a legal notice-cum-application to 3rd respondent under Section 18 of the LA Act requesting the said authority to refer the matter to Civil Court for deciding the market value of the land acquired and the compensation entitled to by her. Learned counsel would further submit that long after her application, UDPR,J 7 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 the then RDO has referred the matter to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gooty under Section 18 of the LA Act for proper determination of the market value of the land acquired from the petitioner vide his proceedings in Rc.No.D1LA/2142/2012 dated 25.06.2019. The Court returned the file for want of relevant material. The successor in office of the 3rd respondent, however, issued the impugned endorsement as if the petitioner for the first time submitted an application dated 29.06.2015 for referring her case under Section 18 to the Civil Court after a lapse of 997 days and therefore, her case cannot be considered. Learned counsel would argue that the application was filed by the petitioner immediately after notice of award was served by 3rd respondent under Section 12(2) of LA Act and therefore, there were no laches on her part. He thus prayed to set aside the impugned endorsement and direct 3rd respondent to refer the matter under Section 18 of LA Act to Civil Court for adjudication.
6. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition while supporting the impugned endorsement, would argue that the petitioner indeed had knowledge about passing of the award on 25.10.2012 and also the compensation assessed to her land. She, in fact, addressed a letter dated 11.07.2013 to RDO requesting to arrange the compensation by way of cheque. That being the case, there was no reason for her to wait till 04.04.2014 to address a letter to the 3rd respondent for the first time to refer her case under Section 18 of LA Act to the Civil Court. She also addressed a similar application dated UDPR,J 8 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 29.06.2015. Since both the applications were time barred, the 3rd respondent has rightly rejected her application and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Learned Government Pleader thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The point arises for consideration is whether a direction can be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer / 3rd respondent herein to make reference under Section 18 of the LA Act to the Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of the petitioner?
8. POINT: The impugned endorsement dated 21.10.2019 was issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that her application under Section 18 of LA Act was filed after lapse of 997 days and hence, cannot be considered. In that view, to know whether her application was really time barred or not, relevant provisions of LA Act and the judicial pronouncements have to be scrutinized.
9. Section 12 and 18 of LA Act are germane for consideration. Section 12 reads thus:
"12. Award of Collector when to be final: (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made."
UDPR,J 9 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 Section 12 postulates that an award made by the Collector in respect of the amount of compensation arrived at by him towards compensation is, in legal parlance an offer, but it is not a decision or a judgment by a quasi-judicial authority. Be that it may, Section 12 says that such an award passed by the authority shall be filed in the Collector's office and subject to the provision under Section 18 the award is final and conclusive between the Collector and the person interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, in the matter of area, value of the property and the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested.
Then sub-section (2) is most important provision to determine the limitation for filing an application under Section 18, if an interested person is not happy with the quantum of compensation determined by the LAO. This sub-section lays down that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested, but who are not present personally or represented by their representatives when the award was made. Therefore, from the word "shall" employed in sub-section (2), it is manifest that service of notice of the award by the Collector to the interested persons who did not participate in the award proceedings either personally or through representatives is a mandatory.
Then Section 18 of LA Act lays down:
18. Reference to Court:- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the UDPR,J 10 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.
Provided that every such application shall be made:-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
10. However, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed A.P. Act XX of 1959 by which, for clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2), the following clause is substituted:-
(b) In other cases within two months from the date of service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub-
section (2).
11. Thus, Section 18 gives a scope to the person interested who has not accepted the award to seek for judicial intervention to determine the compensation. For this purpose, the interested person has to file a written application before the Collector. Sub-section (2) prescribes the period within which such an application should be filed. As per sub-section (2)(a), if the person interested was present either personally or represented by his representative before the Collector and participated in the award proceedings, then he has to file an application within six weeks from the date of Collector's award. Whereas Section 2(b) as amended by A.P. amendment Act says that in other cases, such an application shall be filed within two months from UDPR,J 11 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of LA Act.
12. Thus, a conjunctive study of Section 12(2) and Section 18(2)(b) tells us that serving of notice under Section 12(2) is the sine qua non for the commencement of the limitation of two months under Section 18(2)(b).
a) It is interesting to note that jurisprudence has been developed by judge made law on the aspect as to whether serving of notice means serving of the award copy itself or serving of relevant particulars of the award to fulfil the mandate under Section 12(2). In Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (S.S.P), Kurnool v. C.Sai Reddy1, before a Division Bench of High Court of A.P. the Government Pleader vehemently contended that "notice of the award"
envisaged by Section 12(2) does not mean that the award itself should be served on the claimants. It is enough if the extent of the land acquired, total amount of compensation determined as payable to the claimants, the name of the claimant entitled to receive the same are furnished and that would constitute sufficient notice of the award and fulfil the requirement of Section 12(2). He contended, if within two months of receipt of such a notice an application was not made then under Section 18(2)(b) of LA Act, the claimant would be disentitled to seek a reference under the LA Act. This argument was not found favour with the Division Bench which observed thus:1
MANU/AP/0182/1984 = AIR 1984 AP 24 UDPR,J 12 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 "We are unable to agree with this contention. In order that a person may be entitled to seek a reference, he must know on what grounds his claim for a higher amount of compensation has been rejected. He must also know whether the Collector has determined the compensation with reference to the date of the notification. If there is a dispute as to the apportionment, on what grounds his claim has been rejected or accepted only in part, as the case may be, should be made known to the claimant. Without knowing the basis on which a lesser amount is awarded, he would not be in a position to seek a reference. The law would not except the claimant to seek a reference in every case irrespective of whether the amount awarded is reasonable or not. The legislature in incorporating sub-section (2) of S. 12 could not have intended only the substance of the award to be intimated to the claimants. In our view, the expression "notice of the award" occurring in sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 clearly postulates that the award as such should have been communicated to the claimants." (emphasis supplied) On the above observation they held that since notice as contemplated above was not served by the Collector under Section 12(2), limitation as prescribed under Section 18(2) cannot be deemed to have been commenced to run and therefore, the petitioners can seek a reference even now also. It was ultimately held by Division Bench thus:
"7. Since the notice under S. 12(2) itself has not been issued as contemplated by the Act and the statement prepared in respect of the lands acquired referred to above, in our view, (does not?) constitute "notice of the award", the writ petitioners are not precluded from seeking a reference under S. 18(2) beyond the period of two months from the date of the award."
Thus, as per the above decision the word "notice" employed in Section 12(2) would mean entire award copy. However, the above view of the Division Bench was held as incorrect by a Full Bench of UDPR,J 13 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 the High Court of A.P. in Maddela Narsimlu v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-I, Sriramsagar Project, Nizamabad2. It was held thus:
22. In Andhra Pradesh and particularly in this Court, the notice under S. 12(2) is given in Form 9 which is contained in the Land Acquisition Manual. The said Form has been evolved by the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Madras and is still being followed in Andhra Pradesh. The Form is as follows :
Form 9.
Notice of award under S. 12(2) of Act 1 of 1894.
The following award has been passed by the undersigned in the matter of the acquisition of the lands noted below and situated in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Village Taluk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey No. & Sub- Extent. Amount Persons to whom
Division awarded, award is made
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- is/are hereby informed that he/they should appear either or by an authorised agent before the undersigned within days after the issue of this notice, and receive the amount specified above, failing which the said sum of money will be kept in Revenue deposit and will bear no interest.
Station :
Date :
Land Acquisition Officer.
Note:-- The paragraph below the statement in this notice should be deleted when the notice is served on those who are not awardees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. We have perused the forms which have been served on the claimants in the present case and we find that Column 1 further gives the award number also. The above details, in our opinion, would be clearly sufficient compliance with the requirement of 'notice of award' contained in S. 12(2) of the Act read with the first part of proviso (b) to S. 18 (2).
27. xxxx For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that under S. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 03-04-2020 (Page 11 of 12) www.manupatra.com Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao 1894 (as amended by A.P. Act XX/1959) notice of award under proviso (b) to S. 18(2) (which corresponds to the first part of proviso (b) to S. 18(2) in the Central Act, does not mean that it is necessary that the award copy or the reasoning part of the award need to be communicated to the persons interested. If the Form 9 as per the A.P. Land Acquisition Manual is served, giving the Award No., the true area acquired, the compensation allowed, the 2 MANU/AP/0025/1991 = AIR 1991 AP 123 UDPR,J 14 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 persons known or believed to be interested and the apportionment, it would be sufficient for the commencement of the limitation of two months.
13. In Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Colleries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani v. Dasari Ramulu3, a Full Bench of the High Court of A.P. was dealing with the question whether serving of notice under Section 12(2) is mandatory to commence the limitation of two months under Section 18(2)(b) or whether the knowledge of passing of award by the person interested, for instance, by virtue of receiving notice under Section 30 of LA Act from the Court is suffice to reckon the limitation. The Full Bench held thus:
34. In view of the observations made above we are of the considered view that:
(1) In Andhra Pradesh the limitation for seeking the reference under Section 18 is two months statutorily provided from the date of service of the notice 04-04-2020 (2) The notice under Section 30 by the Court even if served by the Collector cannot be equated with the notice under Section 12(2) required to be served for the purpose of commencement of the limitation under Section 18(2)(b); (emphasis supplied) (3) Since the mode of service of notice has not been provided for, the question of service of notice as a fact can be found in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. (4) The burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice either actually or constructively, is on the State when the State intends to take advantage contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation. It is for the State to show the date on which the claimant acquired actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence.3
MANU/AP/0200/2000 = 2000 (2) ALD 418 UDPR,J 15 W.P. No.19466 of 2019
14. The above jurimetrical jurisprudence on Section 12 and 18 can be summed up as:
(i) Under Section 12 (2) of LA Act the Collector shall issue a notice about the passing of award to the person interested who did not participate in the award proceedings.
(ii) It is not necessary that award copy or reasoning part of the award need to be communicated, but if Form No.9 as per A.P. Land Acquisition Manual is served giving the award number, true area acquired, compensation allowed, the persons known or believed to be interested and the apportionment it would b sufficient for commencement of limitation of two months.
(iii) Serving of notice under Section 12(2) is mandatory for reckoning the period of limitation. Knowledge of the person interested in other form is not sufficient in this regard.
15. When the above law is applied to the facts of the present case, the respondents have not produced any material to show that the Collector has sent notice of award as contemplated under Section 12(2) of LA Act to the petitioner to commence the period of limitation. On the other hand, the material produced by the petitioner shows that the petitioner by a lawyer notice dated 19.02.2014 requested the 3rd respondent to send copy of the award by enclosing postal order worth Rs.150/- and thereafter copy of the award was made available to her on 28.03.2014. Though this act on the part of 3rd respondent will not discharge the responsibility of the Collector UDPR,J 16 W.P. No.19466 of 2019 under Section 12(2) of LA Act, nevertheless the petitioner submitted an application within one week (04.04.2014) from the date of receiving the award copy, wherein she requested to refer her matter to Civil Court under Section 18 for assessment of compensation. So, the facts would pelucidly show that the application was filed by her within the period of limitation. The argument of the learned Government Pleader that by virtue of her representation dated 11.07.2013, it shall be deemed that she had knowledge of the award and thereby the limitation of two months would commence from 11.07.2013 cannot be countenanced. For these reasons, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the endorsement in Rc.No.D1LA/2124/2012 dated 21.10.2019 issued by 3rd respondent is set aside and he is directed to refer the matter of writ petitioner to concerned Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of compensation entitled to by the petitioner, within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 16.04.2020 MVA