Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mula Venkateswara Reddy vs The National Highways Authority Of ... on 30 August, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010349942023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 744/2023
Between:
Karanam Girijamma and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The National Highways Authority Of India and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S S VARMA
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
WRIT APPEAL NO: 843/2023
Between:
Mula Venkateswara Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The National Highways Authority Of India and ...RESPONDENT(S)
2
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850
Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 844/2023
Between:
Jetty Sanjeeva Rayudu and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The National Highways Authority Of India and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 850/2023
Between:
Alamuru Sarala and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
3
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850
The National Highways Authority Of India and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt: 30.08.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These three appeals arise out of a common order of a learned single judge of this Court dated 20.07.2023 and are being disposed of by way of a common order.
3. The respondents, for the purpose of laying National Highway No.544(D) from Ananthapuram to Giddalur Road Section initiated acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for various lands, including the lands of the appellants herein.
4
RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850
4. The preliminary notification under Section 3(A) of the Act dated 09.12.2017 was published in the newspapers, after the Central Government had authorized the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector (4th respondent in writ petition) as the competent authority for such land acquisition, by way of S.O.No.2698(E) dated 21.08.2017 published in the Gazettee of India. Subsequent proceedings that had to be initiated under various sub sections of Section 3 of the Act were also taken up culminating in publication of notification under Section 3(G) by the 3rd respondent dated 04.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 respectively. Thereafter, 39 awards for land acquired in about 29 villages, were passed between 22.09.2018 to 10.06.2019. The awards in relation to the appellants in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023 were passed on 24.10.2018. The award in relation to W.A.No.744 of 2023 was passed on 10.06.2019. The compensation amount payable under the first two awards, amounting to Rs.1,67,71,129/- was also deposited in the account of the 3rd respondent on 14.11.2018. At this stage, the proposal for building the said National Highway, is said to have been dropped and nothing further was heard. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, by a letter dated 05.03.2022 addressed to the 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram stated that a decision had been taken to revive the acquisition process and called upon the 5th respondent-R.D.O to obtain basic value details, as 5 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 on 01.01.2022, from the concerned Sub-Registrars as the awards passed under Section 3(G) were between the period 22.09.2018 to 10.09.2019.
5. In pursuance of these instructions, the appellants and other affected persons were called, on 15.03.2023, to attend a meeting convened by the 5th respondent-RDO, on 16.03.2022. In this meeting, on 16.03.2022, the 5th respondent-RDO informed the land owners that awards had already been passed in the years 2018 and 2019 and compensation would be paid to them as per the said awards.
6. Aggrieved by the passing of such awards and the proposal of the respondents to pay compensation in accordance with such awards, the appellants herein had moved writ petitions before this Court. These writ petitions, along with some other writ petitions filed by other affected parties were heard together and dismissed by way of a common order dated 20.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present appeals have been filed.
7. The case of the appellants before the learned single judge was that none of the appellants were aware of the passing of any award, by the competent authority, in the year 2018 and 2019 and the first intimation of such an award was given to them only on 16.03.2022. The appellants contended that such an award is contrary to the 6 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 as the award should have been preceded by deposit of compensation whereas no such compensation was deposited as required under Section 3(H) of the Act. Such an award, passed without deposit of compensation would amount to a paper award which cannot be permitted. The judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Madhavarao Gandhe vs. land Acquisition Officer1 was relied upon.
8. The award fixing compensation was passed on the basis of land prices in the year 2017 and payment of such compensation in the year 2022 after the prices of land in the area had increased by a huge margin, is arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
9. These contentions of the appellants were rejected by the learned single judge on the ground that an amount of Rs.1,67,71,129/- was deposited on 14.11.2018 with the competent authority and there was no violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act.
10. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that a combined reading of the provisions of Section 3(A) to 3(H) of the Act would show that there is a comprehensive scheme for acquisition of land and violation of any part 1 1994(3) ALT 175 7 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 of such a scheme would render the entire acquisition process null and void. He would submit that the scheme required the competent authority to seek deposit of compensation from the executing authority, even before the passing of the award and thereafter the executing authority would have to deposit the said money with the competent authority, within 7 days from the determination of the compensation, under the old Rules of 1998 and within 15 days under the new Rules issued in the year 2019. He would submit that such a deposit had never been made and consequently the entire process is rendered void.
11. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy would also contend that the scheme, set out in the Act, requires intimation of the award being given to the affected parties at the earliest and payment of compensation to be made to them immediately thereafter. In the present case, awards which are alleged to have been passed in the year 2018 and 2019 were intimated to the affected persons only in the year 2022. The long gap of 3 to 4 years between the passing of the award and intimation of such award to the affected parties renders the whole process arbitrary and would have to be set aside.
12. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy would submit that the learned single judge had ignored these aspects while passing orders against the appellants and as such, the judgment of the learned single judge 8 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 requires to be set aside and the awards passed against the appellants would also required to be set aside.
13. Sri B.S. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the requirements of the Rules as well as the provisions of Section 3(H) have been complied in view of the deposit of compensation in November, 2018 itself. He would submit that there is no error or arbitrariness in the awards passed against the appellants and the appellants cannot claim any additional compensation on these grounds or seek to set aside the acquisition proceedings. Consideration of the Court:
14. Sections 3(A) to Section 3(J) of the Act are the provisions under which land is to be acquired for the purpose of building, maintenance management or operation of a National Highway. The process is initiated by the Central Government issuing a notification under Section 3(A)(1), of its satisfaction, that land is required for a National Highway. After issuance of this notification, authorized personnel are permitted to carry out preliminary activities such as inspection, survey measurement etc., in relation to the land proposed to be acquired. Simultaneously, any affected person can file objections to the notification issued under Section 3(A)(1) and such objections 9 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 would be heard by the competent authority under Section 3(C). After consideration of such objections, where they are filed, a declaration of acquisition is issued, under Section 3(D), which is published in the official Gazette. Upon such publication, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government under Section 3(D)(2). Section 3(3) also mandates that the notification under Section 3(D)(1) is to be issued within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 3(A)(1), failing which the entire process lapses.
15. After these notifications, the authorized personnel can enter into the land for carrying out necessary work in relation to the National Highway. However, possession cannot be taken at this stage. For the purpose of taking possession, the compensation payable to the affected parties has to be determined under Section 3(G) and the amount determined under Section 3(G) has to be deposited by the Central Government, with the competent authority. After such deposit, possession of the land may be taken in the manner set out in Section 3(E). Section 3(H)(2) states that the competent authority, as soon as the compensation amount has been deposited by the Central Government, shall pay the said amounts to the persons entitled there to.
10
RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850
16. In the present case, proceedings under Section 3(A) to 3(D) as well as proceedings under Section 3(G) are said to have been completed. There is a dispute as to whether there has been compliance of the provisions of Section 3(H) and 3(E).
17. It is necessary to notice the National Highways (Manner of deposit of the amount by the Central Government with the competent Authority for Acquisition of land) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1998 Rules') and subsequent Rules of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2019 Rules').
18. Section 3(H) states that the compensation determined under Section 3(G) shall be deposited by the Central Government as per the procedure set out in the Rules made in this behalf. The rules setting out this procedure were the 1998 Rules. The procedure set out in these Rules was that the executing agency would deposit the amount determined under Section 3(G) of the Act within 7 days of such determination by the competent authority. These Rules would apply to the acquisitions assailed in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023. The 1998 Rules were subsequently replaced, in 2019, by the 2019 Rules. Under these new Rules, the executing agency has to open an account to which the competent authority would have access. The said competent authority, before announcement of the award, 11 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 under Section 3(4), would raise a demand for the amounts awarded and such amounts would be deposited within 15 days of the raising of the demand by the competent authority. The competent authority, in turn, would disburse the said compensation amount to the land owners or the persons interested therein preferably by remitting the said amounts to their respective bank accounts. Where such amounts remain undisbursed or where amounts could not be disbursed due to disputes which are referable to the Civil Court under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, the said undisbursed amounts are to be deposited by the competent authority with the principal Court of civil jurisdiction. Such deposit would be deemed to be payment under Section 3(H)(2) of the Act.
19. The appellants had relied upon the judgments of this Court in Bhimvarapuru Giridhar Kumar Reddy vs. Union Government of India and others2, Chillakuru Rajagopala Reddy and others vs. District Collector, Nellore and Ors3., Appasani Babu Rao and others vs. Union of India and another4., and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through L.Rs and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,5 to contend that any legislation relating to acquisition of land is an expropriatory legislation 2 2012(6) ALD 58 (DB) 3 2015(2) ALD 433 4 2020(6)ALT 377 (S.B) 5 (2011) 5 SCC 553 12 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 which has to be construed strictly and that any violation or variation of the provisions of such an Act would result in invalidating any process of acquisition initiated under such an Act.
20. This Court is in respectful agreement with the said propositions of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments. However, the question remains whether there has been any such violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
21. In the present case, awards had been passed on 24.10.2018 in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023. An amount of Rs.1,67,71,129/- is said to have been deposited into the account of the competent authority on 14.11.2018. This deposit is beyond the period of 7 days set out under the 1998 Rules. While there is a mention of deposit of the compensation with the competent authority, there is no mention of the competent authority having either disbursed the money to the affected persons or that such undisbursed compensation amount had been deposited with the Civil Court. The pleadings reveal that no compensation was paid to the appellants who were the affected parties. The pleadings of the respondents are silent on the question of whether any compensation amounts were deposited with the civil Court. The silence of the respondents in this regard can only lead to the conclusion that no such deposit has been made. 13
RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850
22. As far as the award under W.A.No.744 of 2023 is concerned, the said award had been passed on 10.06.2019 and there is no averment anywhere that the necessary compensation amount had been deposited in the account of the competent authority within the time stipulated in the 2019 Rules.
23. The material placed before this Court along with the pleadings make it clear that the competent authority did not take any steps to either deposit the undisbursed money with the civil Court or to make any payment to the affected parties as the concerned authorities had decided not to move forward in the acquisition of the land. It is only in March, 2022 that the process was restarted and the old awards passed in the year 2018 and 2019 were brought forward for the purposes of taking over the lands of the appellants. It is also clear that possession of the land was not taken over by the respondents till today. In fact, this Court had earlier granted interim directions protecting the possession of the appellants over their respective lands.
24. Even if it were to be assumed that the compensation amounts have been deposited as per the rules, the requirement of section 3H remains. The said Section 3H reads as follows: 14
RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 This provision requires compensation to be paid to the affected persons as soon as possible and, at any rate, within a short time from the date of deposit of compensation by the executing authority. There has been a failure in adhering to this requirement. It is contended by Sri B.S. Shivaji, that this delay can be compensated by payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as provided under the provisions of Section 3H (5).
25. The payment of interest, in the present situation, to the mind of this Court, would not be adequate compensation. The delay in payment of compensation is on account of the respondents abandoning the project. In such a situation, the respondents cannot make use of awards passed earlier and insist that the affected persons should accept the said compensation calculated on the market value in the year 2017. In a manner of speaking, the respondents have also accepted, by implication, in the letter of the Joint collector, dated 05.03.2022, that compensation should be awarded by taking the market values of the land, as on 01.01.2022.
26. We are also alive to the fact that the land is required for construction of a national highway and any delay in such construction 15 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 has a cascading effect, not only in cost but also on the benefits that accrue from such construction.
27. Balancing all these factors, these Writ appeals are disposed of by setting aside the awards dated 24.10.2018 and 10.06.2019 to the extent of the quantum of compensation awarded in these awards with a further direction to the Competent authority, Joint Collector to recalculate the compensation payable to the appellants herein, by taking the market value of the affected lands, as on 01.01.2022. The entire exercise to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________ HARINATH.N, J RJS 16 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. HARINATH W.A.Nos.744, 843, 844 & 850 of 2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 30.08.2024 RJS