Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 500 (AP)

Chundu Pullaiah v. Government of A. P.

2012-06-08

V.ESWARAIAH, VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

body2012
Judgment :- V.ESWARAIAH ACJ. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 07-04-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9688 of 2009, whereunder and whereby the said writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.9688 of 2009 questioning NIL award No.27/2008 dated 30-06-2008 passed by the 3rd respondent herein in pursuance of the directions issued in W.P. No.20062 of 2006 dated 07-12-2007. The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the appellants and others situated at Kommuru Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and it was published in the news paper on 31-07-2000. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-08-2000. After conducting detailed enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 20-04-2001. Without disclosing about passing of the said award, the appellants herein filed W.P.No.4945 of 2001 before this Court and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20-09-2001 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to pass award in respect of the structures, which were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act, within a period of six weeks. As the said order not complied with, the appellants filed W.P.No.20062 of 2006 to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4945 of 2001, dated 20-09-2001 and the learned single judge vide order dated 07-12-2007 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to pass an award after conducting due enquiry. For non-compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20062 of 2006, C.C.No.611 of 2008 was filed and the same was closed leaving it open to the appellants to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Pursuant to the notice issued in the said contempt case, the Special Deputy Collector/3rd respondent herein passed NIL award No.27/08 dated 30-06-2008 by conducting detailed enquiry and the reasons for passing the NIL award are stated as follows:- 1. The Writ Petitioners belong to Konapuram (v) but constructed the structures in agricultural lands of Kommur village unauthorisedly. 2. The writ petitioners have residential houses at Konapuram and also they got compensation for their residential structures. 3. The Writ Petitioners belong to Konapuram (v) but constructed the structures in agricultural lands of Kommur village unauthorisedly. 2. The writ petitioners have residential houses at Konapuram and also they got compensation for their residential structures. 3. The Writ Petitioners have not produced any Panchayat approval for house constructions, Voters list, Electricity Bills and Ration cards with the house numbers of the structures said to have been constructed in Kommur agricultural lands in the year 1986. Had they really constructed these houses in 1986 for residential purpose they would have been incorporated in the Electoral Roll of Gram Panchayat. These structures would have been noted in the Censes house numbering. 4. These structures have not been constructed completely and it is unbelievable that the writ petitioners are residing in the uncompleted houses since 1986. 5. At the time of passing award for lands, the Land Acquisition Officer categorically mentioned that these structures have been raised just before notification with a motive to get wrongful gain. 6. The structures are existing in agricultural lands, there is no necessity to construct these structures in agricultural lands since the original houses of the writ petitioners are in Konapuram village for which they have received compensation and the agricultural lands of Kommur in which the writ petitioners raised structures are very nearer to their habitation in Konapuram village. 7. The structures are motivated and unauthorized roofless and separately situated from the main village in agricultural lands.” Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed W.P.No.9688 of 2009 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07-04-2011 disposed of the writ petition by observing as follows:- As observed earlier, the award was passed way back on 20-04-2001. In case, the petitioners are of the view that the compensation paid to them is not adequate or that an item of property movable or immovable was excluded in the context of awarding compensation, they ought to have filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners did not choose that remedy. When the Act provides for a time-framed remedy, the petitioners cannot bye-pass the same and approach this Court. Further, the so called structures, mentioned in the Award are so trivial, that hardly any compensation can be awarded. For example, in respect of one of the petitioners, the structure was an improvised thatched shed. The petitioners did not choose that remedy. When the Act provides for a time-framed remedy, the petitioners cannot bye-pass the same and approach this Court. Further, the so called structures, mentioned in the Award are so trivial, that hardly any compensation can be awarded. For example, in respect of one of the petitioners, the structure was an improvised thatched shed. Obviously, that was put up on the land to provide shade to the workers at the time of rest. It cannot be said to be a structure to be awarded any compensation. The petitioners were very much at liberty to remove the thatches in case their lands were being sub-merged. The matter has been prolonged beyond a point, by filing series of writ petitions and it needs to be given a quietus. It is clearly held that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation for the so called structures upon the land at this length of time. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon an unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.632 of 2009, dated 01-05-2009 (to which one of us VVA,J is a party). The said judgment is relied upon for the proposition that this court directed that supplementary award to be passed with reference to the structures when it was found that no compensation amount was awarded for structures. In that decision, this court found that no compensation was awarded, though structures were notified in Notification under Section 4(1). It is admitted that in the present case the structures for which the appellants seeking compensation are not notified either in Notification under Section 4(1) or Notification under Section 6. When the appellants have noticed that the structures in their lands are excluded in the Notification under Section 4(1), then they should have atleast taken steps to see that they are included in the Notification under Section 6 or during the course of 5-A enquiry. Therefore, the aforesaid case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants’ is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. Therefore, the aforesaid case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants’ is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that during the course of enquiry, it was revealed that all the structures were constructed with the knowledge of submergence and to get compensation in a wrongful way and that the structures were raised unauthorisedly having knowledge of sub-mergence and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for compensation for unauthorized structures. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in MAHADEO BAJIRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 440. Here in a case of NIL award of similar nature, the Supreme Court has held in para 14 as follows:- “We are here not concerned with the correctness of the decision, but the fact remains that having considered the claim of the appellant for compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim. This does amount to the making of an award, commonly described as “nil award”. If the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, it was open to him to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act which the appellant actually did. We, therefore, cannot hold that no award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was declared on 29-8-1994, since the claim of the appellant was considered and was totally rejected. There was, therefore, no question of giving any calculation of the manner in which the compensation was computed. Since, the application under Section 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the High Court did not commit any error in holding that the application was barred by limitation. It was not disputed before us that the Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference under Section 18 of the Act has no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the aforesaid section.” It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the award passed by the respondents is a NIL award, they cannot approach the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. We are of the opinion that if the appellants are aggrieved by not awarding any compensation for the structures said to have been existed on the lands, the only remedy available for them is to approach the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Single Judge therefore has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition and we see no reason to take a different view. Therefore, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.