Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking appropriate Writ or Direction declaring the proceedings No. B/737/91 dated 18-11-1992 of 1st respondent. Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapalli as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential direction to pass Award under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, on the basis of the Award of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli in O.P.No. 392/87.

2. The facts are many in the case. However for the purpose of deciding the issue, the relevant facts are narrated hereunder:

7. The 3rd Respondent Singareni Collaries Company Limited filed counter affidavit stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the same is filed by the single petitioner on behalf of the other Claimants. There were discrepancies in the signatures of the Claimants, different documents at different times, therefore, a single person may be one of the Claimants cannot file the Writ Petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli after conducting necessary enquiry passed orders on 18-11-1992 and the said proceedings are quite legal and valid. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that a total extent of Ac. 435.27 gts. in Ladnapoor village was acquired and some of the Claimants were not satisfied with the Award filed an application for reference and Civil Court on such reference enhanced the compensation. During the pendency of the O.P., before the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli, a Special Unit was created at Godavarikhani from 22-6-1988 and the enhanced compensation was also deposited in the Court. The petitioner and other Claimants filed an application before the Special Tahsildar-2nd Respondent for re-determination of compensation, the said Special Tahsildar is not a person appointed to perform the functions of the Collector, therefore filing of application before him cannot be said to be in conformity with the Law while the process of verification of the Claimants was in progress, some of the Claimants Arelli Ramachandram and 200 others filed Writ Petition No. 10369/91, the same was disposed of on 1-10-1991 with the directions already extracted supra. Consequent on the directions, enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and the orders were passed on 18-11-1992 rejecting their applications under Section 28-A of the Act. The applications under Section 28-A of the Act were filed before the 2nd Respondent between 6-7-1989 and 26-7-1989. They ought to have been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer or the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the notified authority and the applications so filed before the Special Tahsildar-2nd Respondent transferred to the Land Acquisition Officer, after a period of 20 months. Even in the said applications, there were number of irregularities. All the applications were attested by one Advocate. There is no corresponding entry in the Inward Register which confirm that the petitioners have not filed in normal course in the office. Further, no certified copy of the judgment was delivered along with the applications. Some more irregularities have been pointed out by the Company to contend that number of manipulations were made to show that the applications were filed within time. Therefore, the 3rd respondent submits that the impugned order is quite legal and valid and the same cannot be interfered with.

(1) The applications Under Section 28-A were not filed before the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, within limitation.
(2) The awardees have not received the compensation under protest under the attestation of the Land Acquisition Officer.
(3) That the petitions Under Section 28-A were not enclosed by certified copies of decree in O.P.No. 392/87"

21. The only relevant ground that could be considered in this Writ Petition is whether the rejection of 28-A applications on the ground that they were not filed before the R.D.O. Peddapalli, within the limitation. Section 28-A is extracted below:

22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though this issue is beyond the directions granted by this Court, yet he stated that a seperate land acquisition office was established at Godavarikhani ill 1989 to look after the land acquisition matters of Singareni Colleries Company exclusively and hence as on the date of filing of the applications, the office was functioning at Godavarikhani and therefore they were filed on 6-7-1989 and 26-7-1989. If the Special Tahsildar is not the competent authority, having received the applications, he could have either returned the same to the applicants, so that the applications could have filed the same before the appropriate authority. But, on the other hand, the Collector, who is the administrative superior to the Revenue Divisional Officer by his reference dated 10-10-1991 directed the Special Tahsildar to transferring all the applications to Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the conduct of the authority establishes that they had no objections for receipt of the applications by their subordinate office at Godavarikhani. Even the Collector did not say that the applications should be returned or rejected. The Special Tahsildar was only concerned with the acquisitions of the land in Singareni Colleries Company and even according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, all the files were transferred to Godavarikhani on the establishment of the office at Godavarikhani. In all fairness applicants were under the bonafide impression that the applications were required to be filed at Godavarikhani Office only. In view of the fact that the applications so received at Godavarikhani were directed to be transferred to the Peddapalli by the Collector and after necessary enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed in his letter dated 14-5-91 and 14-10-1991 that the applications are filed within the limitation, it shall be deemed that they are filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, filing an application before the Special Tahsildar, Godavarikhani was treated as an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer by the authorities themselves. In such a situation, at this belated hour, it would not be open for them to come out with the contention that the Special Tahsildar, Godavarikhani was not competent authority to receive the applications under Section 28-A and hence the applications are not maintainable.