Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gangavarapu Venkata Narasa Reddy vs The Land Acquisition Officer Special ... on 6 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1994AP2, AIR 1994 ANDHRA PRADESH 2, (1994) LACC 155
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER
1. The petitioner is an agriculturist whose land to an extent of Ac. 3-46 cente situate in Survey No. 289 of Nernur village, Chejerla Mandal, Nellore district along with trees and well was acquired by the Government in the year 1986 for the purpose. of executing the work relating to Kandleru reservoir. The award was supposedly passed on 30-7-1987 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,65,754/-. As the petitioner was dissatisfied with the award, he filed an application on 12-11-1987 through his advocate seeking for reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As there was no response, the petitioner caused another legal notice to be sent on 27-7-1991 to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Telugu Ganga Project. Even for this there was no response. The petitioner states that he was orally informed in the office of the respondent that the application was filed by him beyond the prescribed period of thirty days and hence the reference was time barred. Thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of correct market value in respect of the aforesaid land.
2. In the counter filed by the respondent it is stated that the petitioner participated in the award enquiry (held on 19-3-1987) and after pronouncing the award on 30-7-1987, the notice of award under S. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on him on the same day, viz., 30-7-1987. It is also stated that he received the cheque on that day itself. Reference is made to the entry in cash book (not produced before this Court) to substantiate that the cheque was delivered to the petitioner on 30-7-1987 itself. The allegation that the petitioner was given notice of passing of award and the cheque after revalidation of the same on 11-11-1987 is denied in the counter.
3. The respondent, therefore, submits that the application presented on 12-11-1987 was time barred and the reference under S. 18 of the land Acquisition Act cannot be made for that reason. Thus the dispute is with regard to date of service of the notice under S. 12(2) of the Act and the date of receipt of cheque for the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not send any notice of passing the award. When the petitioner came to know that the respondent was disbursing the amount of compensation by way of cheques to the land holders affected by the Kandleru reservoir scheme, he went to the office of the respondent on 11-11-1987. It was only on that day he was served a notice dated 30-7-1987 and given a cheque for Rs. 1,65,753-27. It is also the case of the petitioner that the cheque was dated 30-7-87 and it was revalidated only in the month of November, 1987 by the respondent and delivered to him on 11-11-1987. The petitioner states that he received for the first time the cheque containing the revalidation endorsement on 11-11-1987 and not before. The petitioner further states that he presented the cheque on 12-11-1987 and the amount was credited to his account in Syndicate Bank on 16-11-1987. The petitioner has filed the xerox copy of the cheque dated 30-7-1987 for the sum of Rs. 1,65,753-27. It contains an endorsement dated 7-11-1987 revalidating the cheque. He has also filed a certificate issued by the Syndicate Bank, Podalakur branch which shows that the amount in question was credited to the petitioner's account on 16-11-1987. The petitioner also states that he received the notice of award in respect of acquiring the land in some other reach and a cheque for an amount of Rs. 21,505-66 towards compensation for that land was given to him on the same day i.e., 11-11-1987. A further reference to this fact is, however, unnecessary.
5. The record of the Land Acquisition Officer has been placed before me by the learned Government Pleader as per my direction. It is seen from the record that the award bears the date 30-7-1987. It is mentioned in the award that it was pronounced in open Court on 30-7-1987. The letter at page 327 of the file shows that the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) addressed a letter to the Special Collector asking him to approve the "PV and award" for taking further action. The Special Collector approved the draft award and sent it back to the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) on the same day. The draft as approved by the Special Collector contains the following recital :
"Pronounced in the open Court, this the 30th day of July, 1987."
Then follows the payment voucher in Form 'C' and S. 12(2) notice. The payment voucher shows that the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 1,65,753-27 Ps. (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred and fifty three and paise twenty seven only) by cheque under protest. No date is found beneath the signature of the petitioner; but the Special Deputy Collector appended his initials on the voucher and beneath that, he put the date as 30-7-1987. The acquittance in which the cheque number and the amount of compensation are mentioned, bears the signature of the petitioner and the signature of the Special Deputy Collector. But the date is not mentioned. Thereafter we find S. 12(2) notice. In that notice petitioner's signature is found, but he has not put any date. However, in tune with the endorsement on payment voucher and the award, the Special Deputy Collector initialled and put the date as 30-7-1987. Another startling fact that has surfaced on a scrutiny of the record is that there are two blank papers containing the signatures of the petitioner at pages 449 and 450 of the record.
6. Now the question is whether the version of the respondent that the petitioner presented himself before him on 30-7-87 and received S. 12(2) notice and the cheque is believable? The documents forming part of the record speak for themselves. It is highly improbable if not impossible that the despatch of the draft award, approval of the award by the higher authority, pronouncement of the award, service of S. 12(2) notice and the payment by way of cheque would have all been completed on the same day i.e., 30-7-1987. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner went to the Land Acquisition Office by strange coincidence in anticipation of passing of the award on that day, even though no intimation was sent to him. It is difficult to accept the contention of the Government Pleader that the cheque would have lapsed in the hands of the petitioner and revalidation could have been made by the respondent at his request. For more than one reason this plea is utterly untenable. Firstly if the request for revalidation emanated from the petitioner, an application to that effect would have been found in the record. But there is no such application; secondly nothing was stated by the respondent in the counter about the issuance of a revalidated cheque on 11-1 (-1987 at the instance of the petitioner. When the respondent was confronted with the particulars of revalidation and crediting the amount to his account in the month of November 1987, the learned Government . Pleader has come forward with this specious plea presumably on the instructions of the respondent. It is also not in consonance with the ordinary course of human conduct that the petitioner who received the cheque under protest would allow the cheque to get time-barred and to approach the respondent for revalidation after a period of four months. A ryot who had lost his land could not have neglected to realise the money as soon as he could. It is worthy of note that the very next day after receiving the cheque in its revalidated form the petitioner credited the, cheque to his account in the Syndicate Bank and caused a legal notice issued on 12-11-1987 itself seeking for reference to Civil Court. The petitioner who received the payment under protest would not have refrained from taking any follow up steps for getting the matter referred to Civil Court. These are all unmistakable pointers to the fact that the petitioner did not receive the cheque on 30-7-87 as it is made to appear from the record and that he could not have received the cheque earlier than 11-11-1987. The blank signed papers found in the record make it crystal clear that the petitioner who is hardly a literate was made to act to the dictates of the respondent or his staff. He freely appended his signatures wherever the respondent's office wanted without taking the precautions such as noting the date.
7. From all these facts the reasonable inference to be drawn is that the petitioner was made aware of the award for the first time on 11-11-1987 and the cheque bearing the date 30-7-87 was handed over to him on 11-11-1987 after revalidation suo motu by the respondent. The respondent had obviously ante-dated the dates on the S. 12(2) notice and the payment-voucher.
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that this Court cannot go into the question of fact and it is for the Civil Court that can properly go into this question after reference is made. The learned Government Pleader has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. D. Hasnuddia v. State of Maharashtra, . I do not think that this contention is tenable. The decision of the Civil Court on this aspect can only arise after reference is made. In order to determine whether reference has to be made, I have to necessarily go into the question of the date of receipt of the cheque and award notice. The mere assertion in the counter or denial of the petitioner's version ought not to come in the way of this Court resolving that issue with reference to the facts of the case apparent from the record. What all the Supreme Court laid down in the aforesaid judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a reference which it is called upon to decide is a valid and proper reference according to the provisions of the Act. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Civil Court can inter alia go into the question whether the reference was made beyond the period prescribed by the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 18 and if it finds that the application was made beyond time, the Court can decline to answer the reference. The fact that the Civil Court can go into that question does not mean that this Court while directing reference cannot go into the question. Of course, it will be open to the Land Acquisition Officer to adduce evidence, if any, before the Civil Court in order to rebut the inference drawn by this Court while ordering reference. But as the factual position and the evidence on record now stand, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner did make his application within time; that is to say, soon after he received the award notice and cheque under protest. That is why I am directing reference.
9. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the respondent is directed to treat the application of the petitioner for reference to the Civil Court as having been made within the prescribed time and to refer the matter for determination by the competent Civil Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, subject to fulfilment of other formalities.
10. It is distressing to note that this case brings to fore the bureaucratic apathy and indifference to the plight of a ryot whose land has been acquired. The petitioner's request to refer the case to Civil Court for determination of compensation evoked no response for four long years. After the writ petition was filed, the respondent in order to defeat the only legal remedy available to the petitioner, took shelter under the manipulated record. Initially I felt that I should direct prosecution of the concerned official for perjury or initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, but in view of the long lapse of time and the difficulty in fixing the responsibility on the deponent of the counter-affidavit (sworn to on 3-12-91) I have refrained from doing so. This Court will not hesitate to take such drastic steps of punishing those who indulge in making false statements which undoubtedly have a tendency to undermine the rule of law and to obstruct the course of justice.
11. The writ petition is therefore allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/-.
12. Petition allowed.