Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 993 (AP)

Chukka Venkataswamy v. Government of A. P.

2008-11-20

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
COMMON ORDER:- The petitioners are the owners of land in different survey numbers of Chukkayapalli Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District. It is stated that lands were acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project, through a notification, dated 2.11.1995, published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), along with other lands belonging to number of other persons. A common award was passed on 11.12.1997 fixing the market value and extending the statutory benefits. The owners of some of the lands covered by the award sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act Accordingly, the matters were referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, and they were taken up as L.A.O.P .Nos.51 of 2000 and 20 of 2001. 2. The claimants in the O.Ps., referred to above, agreed for settlement through Lok Adalat. As a result, a consent award was passed on 29.3.2007. Under the award, the market value was enhanced by 75% and the claimants have foregone interest on 30% solatium and additional market value vis-avis the enhanced compensation. 3. On coming to know the award, dated 29.3.2007, the petitioners approached the/Land Acquisition Officer, 3rd respondent herein, with an application under Section 28A of the Act, for re-determination of compensation for their lands. The 3rd respondent received the same and passed award, dated 6.6.2008, extending the benefits of enhancement of market value by 75%, solatium and interest, as provided for under the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not extended the benefit of interest on solatium and additional market value on the enhanced compensation. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, narrating the relevant facts and furnishing the necessary figures. They state that the petitioners cannot get any higher benefit than the original claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.51 of 2000 and 20 of 2001. 5. Sri V.L. Surendra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the owner of the land, that is acquired by the Government, is entitled to be paid interest on solatium and additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. He contends that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in denying the same. He places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.13421 of 2008. 6. He contends that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in denying the same. He places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.13421 of 2008. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the sole basis for the claim of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act is the award, dated 29.3.2007, and the petitioners cannot claim any amount more than what is granted under that award. 7. Section 28-A of the Act was enacted by the Parliament to rescue the owners of the land, who were not able to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act, for enhancement of the compensation within time. A facility is created, whereunder, the owners of the land, who did not seek reference, can claim the benefit, in case, the civil Court passes a decree in a reference, at the instance of the persons covered by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof places an obligation on the part of the concerned authority to re-determine the compensation, obviously on the basis of the award/decree pronounced by the Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 8. In the instant case, the reference made to the civil Court was settled through the medium of Lok Adalat. The terms thereof are that the market value be enhanced by 75% and the claimants shall give up their right to be paid interest on solatium and additional market value as provided for under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were extended all the benefits, that were mentioned in the award passed by the Lok Adalat in L.A.O.P.Nos.51 of 2000 and 20 of 2001. 9. The petitioners seek a larger relief than the one secured by the persons, who sought for reference and figured as parties to L.A.O.P.Nos.51 of 2000 and 20 of 2001. Such an approach is contrary to the very scope of Section 28-A of the Act and the object underlying it. While examining an application under Section 28-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer is not expected to go into the legality, validity or reasonability of the claim made by the applicant. His discretion is circumscribed by the award or decree passed by the Court under Section 18 of the Act. While examining an application under Section 28-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer is not expected to go into the legality, validity or reasonability of the claim made by the applicant. His discretion is circumscribed by the award or decree passed by the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Even if the claim of the land owner or any part of it is capable of being accepted under the relevant provisions of law, it becomes restricted to the extent, indicated in the decree passed by the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Acceptance of the plea of the petitioner would place the claimants under Section 28-A of the Act on a higher pedestal and footing, than those who endeavoured to seek reference and successfully obtained an award/decree from the Court. The Parliament never intended to confer additional benefit on a person, who otherwise remained donnant or silent, compared to the one, who pursued the remedies diligently in accordance with law. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 13241 of 2008. From a perusal of the same, it is not clear as to whether the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.31 of 2001, which is the subject-matter of that writ petition, have g ven up their right to be paid interest on solatium and additional market value. It has already been pointed out that in the instant case, the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.51 of 2000 and 20 of 2001 have specifically agreed to give up interest on solatium and additional market value. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief. 11. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.