Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
I Koteswara Rao vs The Competent Authority Land ... on 11 October, 2022
Author: D. Ramesh
Bench: D. Ramesh
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.768 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to pass award taking into consideration the market value of the land as on the date of publication of 3-A notification 06.12.2016.
2. Heard both the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the subject agricultural lands situated in Maruproluvaripalem Village of Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. The respondents have issued a notification under Section 3-A of National Highways Act, 1956 on 06.12.2016 proposing to acquire an extent of 30,281 sq.mts situated in Sy.Nos.27-1A2, 27-2B2 etc Maruproluvaripalem Village including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of N.H.26 form 127.900 to 195.355 Km in Andhra Pradesh. The notification under Section 3-G of N.H Act was published on 15.11.2018. The petitioners have submitted a claim requesting the competent authority to fix the market value of the land @ Rs.1 2 crore per acre. The 2nd respondent has passed the award vide Rc.No.5442/2012-G2, dated 25.02.2021. The acquisition notification was issued under N.H.Act, 1956, the compensation for the lands have to be determined and paid as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(for short 'The Act'). The market value of the land has to be determined as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(for short 'The Act'). The 2nd respondent has passed the award without taking into consideration the market value of the land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 3-A of the N.H.Act, 1956.
As per the provisions of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is mandatory on the part of the land acquisition officer to take the basic value of the Registration Department, if it is higher. In this case, the market value of the land as per the basic value register of the Stamps and Registration Department is high compared to the market value fixed by the 2nd respondent. In the impugned award the 2nd respondent has fixed compensation taking into consideration the market value awarded in the previous award No.19/2017, dated 31.07.2017. The market value of the land in 3 the previous award No.19/2017 was fixed on the basis of the market value as on the 3-A notification dated 22.03.2016. It is submitted that subsequent to 22.03.2016, there was revision of market value by the Registration and Stamps Department. But the 2nd respondent erred in fixing the market value of the land on the basis of market value fixed in previous award No.19/2017. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
In reply to the said contentions, the 3rd respondent has filed counter. In the said counter, it is stated that the land to an extent of 24,559 sq.meters situated in Maruproluvaripalem Village of Bapatla Mandal was acquired for public purpose. It is further stated that the competent authority has passed orders adopting market value passed in previous Award No.19/2017- N-216, dated 31.07.2017. The said award may be read with part and parcel of this affidavit for all purposes. It is also submitted that by the said award, claimants including the petitioners have filed arbitration application before the District Collector and the arbitrator has passed orders vide Arbitration orders in Rc.No.5443/2012/G2, dated 16.04.2019. The said orders may be read with part and parcel of this affidavit and it is appropriate to state that the said orders passed in the 1st phase award, were adopted in 2nd phase award in respect of Maruproluvaripalem village of Bapatla Mandal which are 4 acquired lands in the above separate arbitration orders dated 16.04.2019 and 23.09.2020 respectively. Accordingly, the compensation was paid as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'The Act').
Based on the above said pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which reads as follows:-
Determination of market value of land by Collector:-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher:Provided that the dale for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.--The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation I, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
5Explanation 3.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that--
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause
(a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-section (1): Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the 6 market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of the said Act, the market value has to be determined as on the date of notification and Explanation 3 of the said Act clearly says that any price paid as compensation for the land acquired under the provisions of the Act on the earlier occasion shall not be taken into consideration.
But, in the instant case, contrary to the said provisions, the authorities have fixed the market value to the lands based on the award passed on 22.03.2016. The learned counsel submits that the said action is contrary to Section 26 of the Act. Hence, requested to set aside the impugned award passed by the respondents and remanded the matter back to the authority to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 26 of the Act.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance as against the award, there is a statutory remedy under the provisions of NH Act, 1956 to file an application before the competent authority. Further, the learned Government Pleader has submitted in view of the Judgment rendered by this Court reported in 2016 4 ALD 413, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.7
Based on the above contentions and also the Judgements relied by both the counsels, normally this Court is not inclined to go into the matter of awards. But, in the instant case, the respondents have committed error while passing the award by fixing the market value of the lands which is prohibited under Section 26 of the Act. According to the said provisions, there is strict prohibition to the Land Acquisition authorities not to follow and not to take into consideration the market value fixed in the earlier occasion. When, such is a situation, the authorities has to follow and fix the market value based on the date of notification. But, in the instant case, they have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 26 of the Act.
In the said circumstances, the impugned award passed in Rc.No5443/2012-G2, dated 25.02.2021 is set aside, remanding the matter back to the authorities to fix the market value by following the provisions of Section 26 of the Act.
Accordingly, with the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 11.10.2022 tm.8
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WP No.768 of 2022 11.10.2022 tm.