Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Land Acquisition Officer (Special ... vs Pittala Saranga Pani And Ors. on 27 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)ALT134
Author: B.V. Ranga Raju
Bench: B.V. Ranga Raju
JUDGMENT
1. Writ Appeal No. 1312 of 1997 is directed against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 547 of 1993 where as Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1997 is directed against the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 548 of 1993 by the State. Since the subject matter in both the appeals is one and the same, for the purpose of convenience, both the appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The facts as far as the extent of land, survey number and ownership of the land are not in dispute. The appellant herein submits that the land in question was earlier taken over by the Government for construction of Kakatiya Canal without initiating any land acquisition proceedings. Later, the Government acquired the land on 2-1-1990 after issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') which was objected to by the respondents herein. Then Land Acquisition Officer passed Award on 8-10-1990 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard as against Rs. 400/- per square yard as claimed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the respondents sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Civil Court and the same is still pending. Since there was no order with regard to the interest and solatium in the award passed by the L.A.O., the respondents filed the above two writ petitions seeking said benefits and the writ petitions were allowed directing the Government to pass supplementary award as requested by the claimants. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a supplementary award by granting the additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium at 30% of the market value under Section 23 (2) of the Act within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioners have already been awarded these amounts in the reference sought for under Section 18 of the Act, it is not necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass any supplementary Award."
Aggrieved by the said orders of this Court, the present appeals have been filed and obtained stay. Before granting stay, the land acquisition officer had passed supplementary award in compliance with the order of the learned single Judge. It is submitted that the Government got the cheques ready for the said amounts and they are yet to be delivered to the claimants. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as any benefits have to be decided in O.Ps. which are still pending but not in the Writ Petitions and as such the impugned order is quite incorrect. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in Govt. of A.P. v. N. Venkataiah 1996 (3) ALT 352 and J.R.V. Subba Rao v. Dist. Collector 1997 (3) ALT 34. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as conferred under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had ignored to consider the same the claimants were right in approaching this Court and the learned Single Judge rightly directed the Land. Acquisition Officer to pass the supplementary Award. The learned Counsel for the claimants further submits that pendency of reference has nothing to do with the claimants' claim and thus urged to dismiss the appeals.
3. The conduct of the Government on one hand in keeping the cheques ready and on the other hand contending that the claimants are not entitled for statutory benefits unless O.Ps. are decided is something like blowing hot and cold. The controversy in these appeals is whether the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits when O.Ps. are pending. When the compensation is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is needless to say that statutory benefits will be ordered to the compensation. In these cases, the reference is not at the instance of the State but at the instance of the claimants. It means the claimants are dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Such pendency of reference at the instance of the claimants will not come in the way of the Land Acquisition Officer to disburse the amount covered under the award. Since the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2-1-90 this has to be taken as fresh notification. If that is so, the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits by virtue of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
4. The grounds urged by the State in these appeals do not deserve to be considered as everything is quite clear including the claimants' entitlement for statutory benefits. It is not proper to keep the claimants of the land to wait for years and decades together to get the compensation though their lands were acquired and taken possession. Had the claimants were paid the compensation at the earliest point of time they would have invested the said amount by purchasing some other lands or invested in Financial institutions. Any amount of compensation at this stage in our view is not a compensation which may mitigate the loss already suffered by the claimants. However, the other statutory benefits to which the claimants are entitled if given immediately, it may act as some sort of solace to the claimants. Further, the decisions relied upon by Sri Rajagopal Rao, learned G.P. in our view are distinguishable. The proposition in the two decisions are that when O.Ps. are pending writ petitions are not maintainable. We do not say that the said view is incorrect. We are quite aware of the said legal position, but here the peculiarity is in spite of the claimants are being entitled for statutory benefits yet the same are not given to the claimants, and therefore the claimants approached this Court for Writ of Mandamus which was rightly granted by the learned single Judge.
5. Whatever the amount the claimants are entitled shall be deposited in the Court within fifteen days from this date and on such deposit the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without offering any security. But the withdrawal of this amount shall not come in the way of the reference Court to determine the just and adequate compensation on the application filed seeking enhancement. The controversy between the parties would have come to an end if the O.Ps. are disposed of by the Court below at the earliest point of time. Pendency made both the parties to approach this Court unnecessarily.
6. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the O.Ps. within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.