Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Govt. Of A.P. And Others vs Displaced Ryots Association Of ... on 20 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD706, 1998(6)ALT409, 1999 A I H C 1735, (1999) 1 LACC 139, (1998) 6 ANDHLD 706, (1998) 6 ANDH LT 409
Author: Umesh Chandra Banerjee
Bench: Umesh Chandra Banerjee
ORDER
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, CJ
1. This writ appeal has been placed in this list for hearing after having an order of remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration of the Appeal. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the matter observed :
''We have read the brief order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants before us. Having heard Counsel and seen the proceedings, we are of the view that the writ appeal deserves deeper consideration than has been bestowed on it. To avoid prejudicing the case on either side, we refrain from saying more.
The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The writ appeal (Writ Appeal No.852 of 1997) is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits."
2. Incidentally, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal of the State Government inter alia recording the following :
"Learned single Judge has taken notice of the negotiable rate which the Government has accepted for payment to land oustees in G.O. Ms. No.91, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing TGP.II) Department, dated 6-5-1991 and observed that in case the petitioners are found to be land oustees, there should be no quarrel of rate if they accept compensation rate in G.O.Ms. No. of 91. If they do not do so, obviously, the matter has to be proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and in the event, of any objection to the quantum of compensation in the award, reference be made to the Civil Court. We are not persuaded on the facts of the case to take a different view."
Be it noted that the learned single Judge on one aspect of the matter, did not record the following :
".... What is fixed for the lands acquired under Srisailam Project cannot be fixed for the lands acquired under Telugu Ganga and Somasila Projects. If the petitioner and other land oustees of the villages mentioned above agree for the compensation as fixed under G.O. Ms. No.91, dated 6-5-1991, they can do so and if they do not want to settle their cases through Lok Adalats, they have to pursue their reference cases under Section 18 of the Act."
No exception, however, can be taken to this part of the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it has been categorically recorded that if the land oustees do not want to settle their cases through Lok Adalats, they have to pursue their references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. But we cannot possibly lend our concurrence to the findings of the learned single Judge on the other aspect of the matter viz., the pretended discrimination pertaining to award of compensation as between Srisailam Project area and Telugu Ganga and Somasila Project areas and it is on this count only that the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing in support of the appeal, also strongly contended that the observations of the learned single Judge cannot but be termed to be contrary to the provisions of the statute and as such no support can be given thereto. It has been further contended that since the statute has provided a remedy, the same ought to be made available to all and sundry, without any exception.
4. It is on this score, however, the learned advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner strongly criticised the discriminatory treatment meted out to claimants as regards fixation of compensation on the basis of valuation between Srisailam Project area and Telugu Ganga and Somasila Project areas. It has been contended that monthly compensation ought not to vary between areas and areas and as such any attempt on the part of the Government on this score cannot but be looked down upon and needed rectification and it is on this aspect, it was submitted that the learned single Judge's order ought not and should not be interfered with by the appellate Court.
5. On this score of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate-General contended that question of there being any discrimination in the matter in question docs not and cannot arise and in any event fixation of quantum of compensation in all its components having due regard to the area in question, land value of the area in question, the sufferance and the demand is within the domain of the governmental authority and since the same is within the jurisdiction of the governmental authority no exception can be taken in regard thereto. Mr. Additional Advocate-General contended that the power of judicial review is very restrictive and it is only in the event of there being any infraction of law or total miscarriage of justice that the law Courts have the authority in law to intervene and interfere and not in a matter like the present one. Having regard to the contextual facts and the state of law, we do record our concurrence in regard thereto.
6. Incidentally, it is an admitted situation that some of the writ petitioners did move the concerned authority under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but some others did not and it is only the second group of persons who have taken recourse to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution at a much later date and upon acceptance of the compensation without any demur and protest. Be it further noted that on the date of filing of the writ petition, no reference could be initiated by reason of the prescribed period of limitation.
7. While it is true that at the first blush there seemed some arguable issue by reason of the introduction of the 'concept of discrimination' but on a closer scrutiny of the facts as above, the question of there being any discrimination does not and cannot arise. Every district has to be considered in its proper perspective and own sphere and no exception can be taken in the event of framing of a policy by the State Government in the matter of award of a particular rate of compensation in a particular district. In our view, High Court in this set of facts would not be justified in interfering with such a fixation by reason of the location of the place only. The Government in its wisdom thought it fit. having due regard to the importance of the project area at Srisailam, fixed a particular rate, but the Government did not think that Telugu Ganga and Somasila Project areas can be considered at par with Srisailam Project area having due regard to the components, as noted above. It is here that the learned single Judge has been pleased to make a departure from the well settled principle that classification is permitted in the event of there being unequals. The residents of Telugu Ganga and Somasila Project areas cannot be termed to be similarly circumstanced and similarly located as that of residents of Srisailam Project area. These three districts viz., Cuddapah, Nellore and Kurnool of Andhra Pradcsh, have been differentiated in the wisdom of UK Government having due regard, obviously to the importance of the situation and the law Courts, would be rather loathe to interfere with such an clement of classification. It is now a well settled principle that even a microscopic classification is permissible in law, and the decision of the Government on the score ought not to be interfered with lightly. We do not find any compelling circumstances to ascribe the act of the State Government-appellants as discriminatory in the contextual facts. No concurrence, can therefore, be effected to the second part of the observations of the learned single Judge viz., the benefit of enhancement for the outsees, who did not make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, be given. Admittedly the cases of those land oustees are barred by the laws of Limitation as noted above, and as such, what is impossible under the relevant statute ought not be made possible in the guise of adaptation of a further chance. The petitioners having neglected to obtain the statutory protection, cannot now turn down the compensation and move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the above view of the matter, this writ appeal, is however, disposed of only with directions that the cases of those land oustees, who have applied for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, would be governed in terms of the provisions there with. No order need be passed as regards those land oustees, who have not applied for reference by reason of the acceptance of the compensation. Be it noted that compensation, as awarded, was acccepted without demur and protest, and at this juncture, question of challenging the compensation, does not and cannot arise.
9. The order of the learned single Judge stands modified as above. No order as to costs.