Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kodali Rama Devi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.18403 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the petitioner Award Amount of Rs. 38,68,050/- for land acquisition to an extent of Ac. 1.53 cents in R.S.No.197/1A of Amudalapalli Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District as per the Award No. 12/2017-18, dated 29.03.2018 passed by the Respondent No.5 is bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the Award amount of Rs. 38,68,050/- to the petitioner along with the interest @ 24% from June, 2018 and to pass such other orders.."
The claim of the petitioner is that she is owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 2.96 cents situated in Sy.No. 197/1 of Amudalapalli Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. She also obtained Pattadar Pass Book vide Patta No. 5 and her name also duly mutated in all revenue records. There was no dispute with regard to the title over the property of this petitioner. Budameru Stream widening work was taken up in Amudalapalli land in the year 2013, without any prior notification by the Government. The 4th respondent issued Form VI-A Preliminary Notification No. RC.G1.1011/2015, dated 30.08.2015 under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of land for channelization of Budameru stream. In the month of April, 2018, Form-C Award Statement No. 118 was issued and indicated that an extent of Ac. 1.53 cents in Sy.No. 197/1 of the petitioner was acquired and compensation was declared as Rs. 38,68,050/-. The 5th respondent MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 2 submitted land acquisition Bill No. 2019-72269 on 24.05.2018 for Amudalapalli Village lands and is pending for payment in CFMS (Comprehensive Finance Management System). The petitioner got details of voucher in the office of 5th respondent on 17.10.2019 in Nuzvid. The respondents 2, 4 and 5 have not considered the representation of the petitioner and not gave any reply.
Hence, petitioner filed W.P.No.17469 of 2020 and same was disposed of by this court, directing 2nd respondent therein to verify the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2020 and take appropriate action. So far, 4th respondent has not considered the representation or given any reply to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.886 of 2021 against the 4th respondent, who filed counter therein, with all material papers. After going through the counter of 4th respondent, the 4th respondent being the land acquisition officer has passed an Award No.12/2017-18 (Rc.B.1290/2015), dated 29.03.2018, wherein the Award Proceedings, Page 79, Para No.117, it was clearly stated that total award amount payable is Rs.38,68,050/- to the petitioner for the subject land. On verification of the bank details and documentary evidence of total 93 effected land owners, the bill was processed to the CFMS through Pay and Accounts Officers, Vijayawada on 05.06.2018 and CFMS Bill No. 2018-216542 was also generated.
The 4th respondent/ District Collector addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No. Rc.G1.1011/2015, dated 28.10.2020 which reads as:
"In view of the above circumstances, it is submitted that the issue related to the modernization Budameru Drain is long pending. Hence, it is requested to issue necessary instructions to the concerned for clearance of bill in CFMS under HOA-03-103-11-06-530-532, which MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 3 was processed on 05.06.2018 through pay and Accounts Officer, Vijayawada (Bill No.2020-261623) and release the said amount to avoid further legal complications".
Till date no payment was made and the CFMS Bill No.2018- 216542 was getting carry forwarded, every year indicating as "Insufficient Budget for Payment" and the present financial year CFMS Bill No. 2021-22831 was generated. The petitioner is an old lady and suffering with old age ailments and presently taking shelter with her children at Visakhapatnam. On account of delay in payment of compensation awarded to this petitioner, she sustained huge loss. Hence petitioner sought for a direction as stated supra.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, though not filed counter, submitted based on the written instructions of 5th respondent vide Rc.B.1290/2015, dated 16.09.2021, which reads as follows:
(i) It is submitted that, the petitioner who is effected land owner in R.S.No. 197/1 for Ac. 2.96 approached earlier Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.1746/2020 by contending that the fresh representation Dt.31.08.2020 is still pending with W.P.No. 1746/2020 (Collector, Krishna) without any reasons and prayed the Court to direct the Respondent No.5 to consider her representations. The Hon'ble High Court in their order Dt: 28.09.2020 disposed of the Writ Petition directed the Collector, Krishna to verify the representation Dt.
20.08.2020 and to take appropriate action/ Pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within four months.
(ii) It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of the representations referred in the present Writ Petition that the Award in this case passed on 29.03.2018 and after verification of Documentary evidence and Bank details of 93 effected land owners the bill has processed to the CFMS through Pay and Accounts Officer, Vijayawada on 5.6.2018 under Head of Account 4711-03-103-11-06-530-532. (Bill No. 20202- 261623). The Bill pending clearance with an indication in online system with CFMS that "Bill waiting for funds clearance".
(iii) The Collector, Krishna in letter Dt: 28.10.2020 addressed the Principle Secretary to Government (Water Resource Department), A.P. Velagapudi requesting to issue necessary instructions to the concerned MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 4 for clearance of the Bill in CFMS, which was processed on 5.6.2018 (Bill No.2020-261623) to release the amount for averting further legal complications. The above letter is in compliance action to the orders of Hon'ble High Court Dt: 28.9.2020. Orders are awaited from the Government. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Contempt Petition against the Collector, Krishna and Counter submitted by the Collector, Krishna.
(iv) Thus this respondent has taken required action on the spur of moment by getting activating with the concerned Government Department for release of the amount covered by bill. There is no lapse on the part of this respondent.
Apart from above submissions, finally stated that the said bill is pending with concerned Department for clearance.
Heard both the counsel.
There is no dispute with regard to acquisition of the property of the petitioner and passed an Award amount payable of Rs. 38,68,050/- to her, whereas, the proceedings including the generation of CFMS Bill No. 2018-216542, dated 05.06.2018, but for the last three years, the said bill is not cleared and no compensation amount is paid. But addressed a letter dated 28.10.2020 by the District Collector also supports the contention of the petitioner as the bill amount was not paid.
More so, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition fairly admitted that the bill is not cleared, pending for clearance. Hence, non-payment of Award amount to the petitioner is not in dispute. The state being a litigant and acquired the property of the petitioner is under obligation to pay compensation within time as prescribed under the Act and the duty of the Pay and Accounts Officer is circumscribed by the rules. But the Pay and Accounts Officer did not clear the bill, which is generated on 05.06.2018. Though, three years time has been elapsed for one reason or the other. Therefore MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 5 lame excuse invented by the concerned officers for non-payment of compensation cannot be accepted, more so, when the land acquisition officer issued the Government Order, directing the respondents to release the amounts to the petitioner.
The District Collector addressed a letter dated 28.10.2020 for clearance of the Bill to the Principle Secretary to Government (Water Resource Department) A.P. So far either by the respondents including Pay and Accounts Officer did not clear the CFMS bill No. 2018- 216542 of this petitioner. But the reason appears to be that there are no sufficient funds to pay compensation as per award to the petitioner. The total compensation of Rs. 38,68,050/- is payable to the petitioner together with interest, but it is not a big amount and it is too small for the State to pay the compensation to the petitioner. But for one reason or other, the bill is not cleared and amount is not released.
The State is expected to be a model litigant maintaining ethical standards in prosecuting the litigation being a compulsive litigant. The Government of India in view of certain observations made in various Judgments by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. M/s.Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd.,1 and Chief Conservator of Forest of Andhra Pradesh Government v. Collector & others2 adopted National Litigation Policy, but it did not yield fruitful results and it totally failed. But, the Government of India being a model litigant is under obligation to pay, common law has not always been clear, but the written policies seek to provide clarity and guidance and what conduct is required of a model litigant. Behind each of the duties is an overarching duty to act honestly, fairly, with complete 1 (1978) 1 SCC 68 2 (2003) 3 SCC 472 MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 6 propriety and in accordance with the highest professional standards. It goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations and merely acting honestly or in accordance with law and court rules. The policies all variously refer to the following specific duties, some of which have long been recognized by the court:
a) Dealing with claims promptly;
b) Minimising delay in proceedings';
c) Making an early assessment of the prospects of success and potential liability in claims;
d) Paying legitimate claims without litigation;
e) Acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation;
f) Endeavouring to avoid, prevent or limit the scope of litigation and participating in alternative dispute resolution where appropriate;
g) Minimizing costs in proceedings;
h) Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim;
i) Not taking technical points unless the agencies interests would be compromised;
j) Not understanding and pursuing appeals unless there are reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest; and
k) Apologising when the Government or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.
These guidelines as recognized by Common Wealth Countries, the litigation in the courts would be minimized though the Government of India or State adopted Litigation Policy, but it did not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the Government being litigant is at least expected to follow the ethical issues and practical considerations while dealing with a citizen in litigation before the Court and the government is expected to be honest litigant, to minimize the litigation.
MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 7 The Andhra Pradesh State also adopted State Litigation Policy dated 30.08.2011 and certain guidelines have been issued with objects mentioned in second paragraph of litigation policy. The main objects are to manage and conduct litigation in a coordinated and time bound manner; ensure that strong cases are won and weak cases are not pursued needlessly; reduce overall government litigation in courts thereby providing relief to the judiciary etc., and also issued certain directions to prevent and control avoidable litigation and settlement of disputes in alternative dispute resolution system, guidelines for filing of appeals. But without keeping in mind, the litigation policy, framed by State dated 30.08.2011, government agencies and authorities are proliferating the litigation by evasive and un-substantive pleas before court, thereby increasing litigation in the courts, which is contrary to guidelines issued by Apex Court in the judgments referred supra.
As per Clause 2.1 of the Andhra Pradesh State Litigation Policy, the objective of the State is to transform Government from a compulsive litigant into a responsible and efficient litigant, to:
a. manage and conduct litigation in a coordinated and time bound manner;
b. ensure that strong cases are won and weak cases are not pursued needlessly;
c. reduce overall Government litigation load in courts thereby providing relief to the judiciary.
At the same time, specific instructions are given in pursuing land acquisition matters vide Clause 9.8 and it is observed that, since consent awards are being passed by the Empowered Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Commissioner, CCLA with the Members and the concerned District Collector, the hitherto system of reference being made by the Land Acquisition Officer has almost become rare.
MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 8 However, where the reference court enhances the market value, if the same is found to be very reasonable or covered by matters arising from the same survey numbers or within the same village similarly situated in most of the respects, preferring first appeal and then carrying the matter to Supreme Court will have to be dispensed with, so, as to avoid wastage of time and huge financial burden on the State on account of inordinate delay in disposal of the appeal which would saddle the Government with payment of interest. However, the opinion of the concerned Government Pleader or the Law Department will have to be obtained.
When the intention of the Government is to minimize the litigation without preferring an appeal against the Reference Officer of the Referral Courts, causing inordinate delay in payment of compensation is more serious than filing of appeals and when the award is passed together with subsequent interest, it will enhance the liability of the Government on account of passage of time and it is an additional burden on the State instrumentalities, it is a loss to the public exchequer and the Government is dealing with the public funds. Therefore, such delay in payment of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer on the lame excuse pleaded by the Pay and Accounts Officer in releasing the amount, though Pay and Accounts Officer is not concerned, is a matter of serious concern. The Government is directed to take appropriate steps to pay awarded amount to the petitioner vide Award No.12/2017-18, dated 29.03.2018 within four (04) weeks from the date of this order. It is a fine example where the State and its Instrumentalities are acting in most nonchalant manner and irresponsibly, which itself indicates that the State's approach is not fair. In Land Acquisition Officer, A.P MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 9 v. Ravi Santosh Reddy (dead) by Lrs3, while sustaining the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Apex Court laid heavily on the Andhra Pradesh State Government holding that the State unnecessarily pursued the pity matter to the Apex Court in appeal, which does not involve any arguable point either on facts or in law nor it involves any point of public importance and nor it involves any substantial money claim. What was involved was only the calculation of payment of interest on the decreetal sum for a particular period.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. In the event of failure to comply with the above direction within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate necessary proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 17.09.2021 KK 3 2016 AIR (SC) 2579 MSM,J W.P.No.18403 of 2021 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.18403 OF 2021 Date: 17.09.2021 KK