Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tota Venkat Reddy And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 13 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD804, 1999(6)ALT547
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith implement the orders dated 13-11-1995 in Writ Petition No.l6714of 1991.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that an extent of 25 guntas situated in S.No.279/2 of Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy District was notified for acquisition. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') was published on 29-12-1977 and the possession of the land was also taken on 8-2-1978. However withdrawal proposajs were initiated under Section 48 of the Act, but after re-enquiry it was found that it was a patta land and therefore on 10-2-1984 withdrawal proposals were withdrawn. But, however, further proceedings were not taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16714 of 1991 for appropriate directions. This Court by an order dated 13-11-1995 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
"Under these circumstances, I am constrained to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the further proceedings in pursuance of notification dated 29-12-1977 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be proceeded with on priority basis and final award shall be passed in respect of the land of the petitioner ie., 25 Guntas situated in Sy.No.279/2, Alwal Village, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Since the possession was taken in 1978 and so far the petitioners have not been paid any amount in respect of the land acquired on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is incumbent upon the 3rd respondent to provide the requisite funds as determined by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two months from the date of detenu ination."
Since the said order was not implemented even though considerable time has been elapsed, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking implementation of the orders of this Court.
3. In the counter filed on behalf of the Department, it is stated that in pursuance of the directions of this Court, necessary action was initiated by the land acquisition officer and the award was passed on 12-2-1999. It is stated that the land which is acquired had already vested with the Gram Panchayat. The owners submitted layout in respect of the land in question and the lay out was approved. The water pipeline which is passing through the road belonging to the municipality and therefore the question of payment of any compensation does not arise. However, in view of the directions of this Court, the proceedings were initiated and the award was passed. Since the title of the land was involved, a reference was made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') to the civil Court and the amounts were deposited in the civil Court for further action. In view of this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that no further orders are necessary in the writ petition and the writ petition may be closed, since the award was passed.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the directions of this Court have not been fully implemented, the award suffers with various infirmities. Even though adjacent lands were acquired and the compensation was fixed at Rs.4.61 ps. per sq. yard, in respect of the land in question, the value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre which is grossly disproportionate and the arbitrariness being writ at large. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the land acquisition officer has no power to refer the matter under Section 30 of the ACT to the competent civil Court and also implead the Commissioner, Municipality, Special Officer and competent authority. Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. Under Section 30 of the Act, if there is any dispute with regard to the title of the land, it is open for the Collector lo refer the matter to the Civil Court. In the instant case, there is no such dispute at all. On the other hand, the Government itself accepted that the land is a patta land belonging to the department, in such a situation, the action of the Collector in referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act is mala fide. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment reported in P. Appalamurthy v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh, , M/s. Singareni Galleries Company Limited v. K Safycmarcyana Miirlhy, 1983 (2) APLJ 405, and D. Vijayalakshmi v. District Collector, Krishna, .
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the land was already vested with the Gram Panchayat (now Municipality) and therefore, the question of payment of compensation does not arise and since this Court directed the authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings, the proceedings were completed. But, however, it is always open for the Collector to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act to the competent civil Court. The petitioner cannot agitate this issue in this writ petition as it is beyond the scope of the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition.
6. The writ petition was filed in July, 1998 alleging that the award was not passed as directed by this Court and therefore appropriate directions shall be issued to the respondents to pass orders. But, after filing of the writ petition, the scenario has been changed. The Government have filed counter stating that the award was passed on 12-2-1999 and it is open for the petitioners to take further proceedings if they are aggrieved. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submit that the petitioners have already taken steps for referring the matter under Section 18 for enhancement of the compensation. However, the grievance now voiced before this Court is that the reference under Section 30 of the Act is wholly incompetent and withoutjurisdiction. This Court never directed the reference to be made under Section 30 to the competent civil Court. Therefore, to that extent, it is not proper compliance of the orders of this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners took this Court to various decisions of this Court and submitted that the action is wholly mala fide.
7. Having considered the respective contenlions, I have to necessarily observe that the scope of writ petition was very much limited. The grievance is to the extent of directing the authorities to pass the award. Inasmuch as the award has been passed, now it would not be open for the petitioners to again contend that the award was not passed in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The action of the land acquisition officer in referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act is a quite different and distinct issue. This Court did not anticipate that such an order would be passed by the authorities. Now the award has been passed and the amount has been deposited in the civil Court and the matter has been referred under Section 30 of the Act, it is open for the petitioners to challenge the reference under Section 30 of the Act, if he is so aggrieved. But, he cannot agitate the same in this writ petition, which is confined to passing of the award, may by the petitioners would be aggrieved by reference under Section 30. The principal contention is that the Government is estopped ., from stating that the land vested with the Government and therefore no compensation need be paid and that the compensation if any should go to the Gram Panchayat under whom it is vested by virtue of the sanctioned lay out. But, this is a matter which ought to be agitated under a separate proceedings and the petitioners have also not taken any steps to amend the prayer in the writ petition so as to challenge the award to the extent of the reference made under Section 30- Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to convince this Court that so long as the award is not in accordance with the directions of this Court, this Court can interfere with the matter and issue appropriate directions, quashing the direction in the award relating to the civil Court under Section 30. 1 am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. This is a matter wiiich has to be considered in a separate writ petition as to whether the land acquisition officer is competent to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act without there being any application by the concerned parties or whether it is competent for the land acquisition officer to implead the third parties stating that they are interested parties. These are of the matters which have to be decided in a separate proceedings and not in the present proceedings.
8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that consequent on the passing of the award dated 12-2-1999 no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and it is left open to the petitioners to challenge the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent civil Court in a separate proceedings, if they so choose. No costs.