Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1344 (AP)

Tadi Sreerama Rao v. Dist Collector EG Dist

2003-11-03

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
( 1 ) THE land in Survey Nos. 64/1a and 64/1b of Vakkalapudi Village Kakinada, east Godavari District admeasuring acs. 13-54 cents was notified for acquisition for the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh industrial Infrastructure Corporation/third respondent. ( 2 ) DRAFT notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) was published in the Gazette on 31-12-1986 and the declaration under Section 6 was published on 18-09-1987. The 1st and 2nd petitioners obviously notbeing aware of the acquisition proceedings, purchased an extent of 300 square yards each in the said survey numbers through sale deeds dated 12-10-1987 and 07-11-1987 respectively. ( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer the 2nd respondent herein, passed an award dated 25-10-1989 fixing the compensation for the value at Rs. 35,280/- per acre. Since he entertained doubt as to the entitlement of the various claimants to receive the compensation, he referred the matter to the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, kakinada, under Section 30 of the Act. The same was numbered as O. P. No. 61/1991. Possession of the land was taken by the third respondent. ( 4 ) ON 08-11-1995, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent to delete the extents of land purchased by them, for the purview of the acquisition. The same was not acceded to. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the 3nd respondent for allotment of plots purchased by them, at a concessional rate. Some correspondence ensued. Since nothing was forthcoming, they filed this writ petition challenging the very award itself. ( 5 ) THE petitioners contend that, the award suffers from a fatal legal infirmity. According to them, though the 2nd respondent deposited the compensation in the Court initially, the samewas withdrawn. According to them, any reference under Section 30 without keeping the amount of compensation in deposit in the Court is impermissible. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filedby the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act have become final and that the 2nd respondent had complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The correspondence as regards the allotment of the land to the petitioners was also referred to, and ultimately it is stated that the same could not be finalised on account of the failure of the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount. The correspondence as regards the allotment of the land to the petitioners was also referred to, and ultimately it is stated that the same could not be finalised on account of the failure of the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned standing Counsel for 3rd respondent. ( 8 ) IT is a matter of record that the land in survey Nos. 64/1-A and 64/1-B was acquired, and an award was passed. With the passing of the award and taking of possession, the land stands vested in the government under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioners made an effort, initially to get the land purchased by them deleted from the purview of the acquisition and thereafter to get the said plots allotted to them. The present challenge is to the very award. ( 9 ) BEFORE making a reference under section 30 of the Act, the 2nd respondent was required to deposit the compensation into the reference Court. It is not in dispute that, such a deposit was made. The objection raised by the petitioners is in relation to a subsequent development, namely that the reference court had returned the compensation to the land Acquisition Officer. The circumstances under which the amount came tobe returned are not pleaded before this Court. At any rate, as long as reference did not terminate with the refund of the amount, there cannot be any plausible objection. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the O. P. is still pending. Further, as on today the petitioners are not parties to the reference. If at all any body, it is the parties to the reference that can raise an objection as to the refund or withdrawal of the compensation. ( 10 ) UNDER these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. Admittedly, they have secured interest in the property only after the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 were published. The Act clearly prohibits any transaction of transfer, once a notification under Section 4 (1) is published. The petitioners can workout their remedies as regards receipt of compensation, vis-a-vis their vendors. Admittedly, they have secured interest in the property only after the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 were published. The Act clearly prohibits any transaction of transfer, once a notification under Section 4 (1) is published. The petitioners can workout their remedies as regards receipt of compensation, vis-a-vis their vendors. For that purpose, the only course open to them is to approach the reference Court with an application under order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. ( 11 ) A larger bench of this Court in Repaka bhyravamurthy and another v. Muppidi venkataraju held that it is open to any interested party to get himself impleaded in a reference under Section 30 irrespective of the fact whether such person has participated in the award enquiry. ( 12 ) HENCE, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to workout their remedies by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 in O. P. Nos. 61 of 1991 and 18 of 1991.