Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal is at the instance of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 of the Writ Petition, at whose instance some land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 in the Writ Appeal, was the Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition, who is the respondent No. 2 in the Writ Appeal i.e., the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Altogether there were 99 land acquisition cases in all of which the respondent No. 1 had appeared for the respondent No. 2. In passing orders on the reference applications, the Civil Court awarded in the memo of costs of the proceedings Rs. 2,000/- as Advocate fee in each of the cases. It is the admitted case that the decree regarding the fees so fixed has become final. Since the respondent No. 1 failed in his attempts to get the fees, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 414 of 1993 which having been allowed, the present Appeal has been preferred.

2. Since during the course of hearing of the appeal objections were taken regarding the respondent No. 1's entitlement to the fee on the ground that he had appeared in the cases as the Assistant Government Pleader and hence was not entitled to fees in the contested scale as a private practitioner, we had directed, in our order of 14-8-1995, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to file a counter-affidavit specifically stating as to whether the respondent No. 1 had appeared in the cases through memos of appearance or Vakalats and whether at the time of appearance he was the Assistant Government Pleader and, if so, continued as such upto what date. An affidavit has been filed, in pursuance of the order, on 4-9-1995 by the Revenue Secretary averring that the respondent No. 1 had appeared in the cases through Vakalatnamas executed by the Special Deputy Collector, respondent No. 2, and that he had continued as the Assistant Government Pleader from 19-2-1983 till 22-3-1989. In the affidavit it has also been inter alia stated that the deponent to the affidavit, the Revenue Secretary, is not concerned in the case and that it is a matter for the Urban Development Department and that the fees, if any to be paid to the Legal Officer, has to be paid by the Requisitioning Department i.e., Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority, but not by the Revenue Department.

7. In the present case, the respondent No. 2, though is a Government Officer, was also attached to the appellants and, as is conceded to by the learned Government Pleader and other counsels appearing in the case, was working as the Land Acquisition Officer so far as the land acquisitions were made for the benefit of the appellants. His predecessor was the Sub-Collector, Tenali and the respondent No. 2 was substituted for him during the pendency of the reference cases in the Civil Court and had engaged the respondent No. 1 executing the vakalatnamas. Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents has produced a copy of G.O.Ms. No. 249 dated 9-3-1970 of the Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding conduct of cases before the Court in land acquisition cases. The decision was taken, after examination, by the Government that the Law Officer of the Government and counsel for requisitioning authorities both should not conduct the suits in the Courts when the requisitioning authorities are Government undertakings or statutory boards controlled by the Government. Taking the view, it was directed that whenever the requisitioning authority belongs to those categories Vakalatnamas may be executed in favour of its counsel to appear on behalf of the Government and their officers and that the Government Pleader need not appear in those proceedings. In the face of the G.O. the provisions in the land acquisition manual relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants must be taken to have been modified to that extent. The appearance of respondent No. 1 on Vakalatnamas executed by respondent No. 2 only shows compliance with such directions of the G.O.Ms. No. 249 dated 9-3-1970. As the G.O. shows, it was being issued by the Government in consideration of the fact, inter alia, that the requisitioning authority has to defray all the incidental charges connected with the case including payment of fees to Law Officers of the Government and in addition pay the fees to their own counsel if he also attends the Court and conducts the case which means double payment to two counsels in the same case. The peculiar circumstances of the present case show that both respondents 1 and 2 were acting in dual capacities and the fact that respondent No. 1 sent the Vakalatnamas to respondent No. 2 who executed the same in his favour and respondent No. 1 appeared on those Vakalatnamas and his engagement was continued beyond the cessation of his term as the Assistant Government Pleader goes to show that the intention of both respondents 1 and 2 throughout had been that respondent No. 1 was not conducting the case as the Assistant Government Pleader but as a private counsel representing the appellants, and had been engaged as such by respondent No. 2 in his dual capacities with the understanding that respondent No. 1 was the Counsel for the appellants and that his fees would be borne by them. The mere description of respondent No. 1 as the Assistant Government Pleader in the judgment of the civil Court would not deprive respondent No. 1 of his status as counsel for the appellants and engaged as such by respondent No. 2 as the Land Acquisition Collector, nor affect his relationship with the parties as such.