Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 113 (AP)

Pasuleti Konda Babu v. District Collector

2014-01-28

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2014
Judgment : 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to re-determine the compensation amount under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) as per the Decree and Judgment in AS.No.1321/1994, on the file of this Court dated 17.12.2002 and to pay the enhanced compensation amount. 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition, are as follows: 3. A notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.02.1984 proposing to acquire a total extent of the land admeasuring Ac.13.51 cents including the land of the petitioners herein for the purpose of providing house-sites for weaker section people. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 19.07.1984, fixing the compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per acre. Felt dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act vide O.P.No.18/1985, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, fixed the compensation @ Rs.9/- per sq. yard which would work out to Rs.43,560/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, certain claimants filed A.S.No.1321/1994 and the Government also filed A.S.No.928/1998 before this Court. This Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.20/- per sq. yard and after deducting the developmental charges, the same was worked out approximately @ Rs.13/- per sq. yard. On coming to know about the said judgment and decree passed in appeal suit A.S.No.1321/1994, the petitioners made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, and the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, within three months from the date of the said decree i.e., on 17.02.2003 enclosing a copy of the said Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.1321/1994. 4. The grievance of the petitioners precisely in the present writ petition is that having received the said representation dated 17.02.2003 submitted by the petitioner herein within the time stipulated under Section 28-A of the Act, the respondent authorities failed to take any action. 5. 4. The grievance of the petitioners precisely in the present writ petition is that having received the said representation dated 17.02.2003 submitted by the petitioner herein within the time stipulated under Section 28-A of the Act, the respondent authorities failed to take any action. 5. A counter affidavit deposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/second respondent herein is filed on behalf of the respondents herein stating inter alia that since the petitioners were not parties to OP.No.18/1985, they would not be entitled for redetermination of the compensation as per the Judgment in A.S.No.1321/1994. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the land owners have already been paid compensation @ Rs.9/- per sq. yard in terms of the orders of the reference Court in O.P.No.18/1995 dated 22.10.1992. 6. Heard Sri K.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition as per the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act and the failure on the part of the respondent authorities in not extending the said benefit to the petitioners herein is patently illegal and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. 8. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners’ places reliance on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. PRADEEP KUMARI AND OTHERS ( AIR 1995 SC 2259 ) and U.O.I v. MUNSHI RAM ( AIR 2006 SC 1716 ) and the Judgment of this Court inGATTA SURYANA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( 2012 (1) ALD 574 ). 9. Per contra, it is strenuously contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners herein are not entitled for the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act in terms of the Judgment of this Court in A.S.No.1321/1994 dated 17.12.2002 as the petitioners were not parties to the said appeal. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the term ‘Court’ as stipulated in Section 28-A of the Act is only the reference Court, but not this Court. 10. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the term ‘Court’ as stipulated in Section 28-A of the Act is only the reference Court, but not this Court. 10. In the light of the above pleadings and the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties to the present writ petition, the question which now falls for consideration of this Court is as infra. 11. Whether the petitioners herein are entitled for the benefit of re-determination and payment of compensation as per the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.1321/1994 dated 17.12.2002 under Section 28-A of the Act? 12. The material available on record manifestly discloses that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the acquisition of the land of the petitioners by the respondent authorities for providing house-sites to weaker section people and the enhancement of compensation by the reference Court, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram in O.P.No.18/1985 and further enhancement granted by this Court in A.S.1321/1994 at the instance of certain other land owners. The provision of law which is relevant and germane for the purpose of adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition is Section 28-A of the Act, which reads as under: “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub- section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re- determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub- section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub- section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub- section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.] PART IV Appointment of Compensation.” 13. In the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. PRADEEP KUMARI AND OTHERS (supra 1), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 10 held as follows: “10. A perusal of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 28A of the Act would show that after an award is made under Part III whereby the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, a right accrues to a person interested in the other land covered by the same notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4 who is also aggrieved by the award of the Collector but who had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, to move an application before the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount compensation awarded by the court. This application for re-determination of compensation is required to be made within three months from the date of the award of the court. The right to make the application under Section 28A arises from the award of the court on the basis of which the person making the application is seeking re-determination of the compensation. There is nothing in Sub-section (1) of Section 28A to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the Court after the coming into force of Section 28A. There is nothing in Sub-section (1) of Section 28A to indicate that this right is confined in respect of the earliest award that is made by the Court after the coming into force of Section 28A. By construing the expression 'where in an award under this Part' in Sub-section (1) of Section 28A to mean 'where in the first award made by the court under this Part', the word 'first', which is not found in Sub-section (1) of Section 28A, is being read therein and thereby the amplitude of the said provision is being curtailed so as to restrict the benefit conferred by it. In the matter of construction of a beneficent provision it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to read words which are not there and thereby restrict the scope of the said provision. [See : Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Bose MANU/SC/0507/1975 : [1976]1SCR105” In the case of U.O.I v. MUNSHI RAM (supra 2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 7 held as follows: “7. We are of the view that the Union of India is right in its submission that the amount payable under Section 28A of the Act is the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced compensation even on those owners who did not seek a reference under Section 18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain benefit by reason of others getting such benefit should retain that benefit, even though the others on the basis of whose claim compensation was enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation to an extent. This would be rather inequitable and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 28A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the Reference Court, we must understand the decree to mean the decree of the Reference Court as modified in appeal by higher Courts. This would be rather inequitable and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 28A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the Reference Court, we must understand the decree to mean the decree of the Reference Court as modified in appeal by higher Courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge that a person who did not challenge the award of the Collector and did not claim a reference under Section 18 of the Act would get a higher compensation than one who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed a reference, but in whose case a higher compensation determined by the Reference Court was subsequently reduced by superior court. There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior Court in appeal. The principle of restitution must apply to them. For the same reason, the same consequence must visit others who have been given benefit of enhanced compensation pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the application of others.” In the case of GATTA SURYANA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER (supra 3), this Court at paragraphs 8 and 9 held as follows: “8. Whether respondent No. 2 was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Act, for paying the enhanced compensation, as enhanced by the Division Bench of this Court, in the appeals filed by other land owners, covered by the award, on the ground that it is barred by Imitation, may be considered. The law is well settled, as admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, that under Section 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the question of any limitation, for claiming compensation, would not arise. The law is well settled, as admitted to by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, that under Section 28A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the question of any limitation, for claiming compensation, would not arise. In Union of India v. Munshi Ram (supra), the apex Court, having considered the question as to what would be the compensation payable to the land owners, who did not seek reference and further appeal, held as under: We are of the view that the Union of India is right in its submission that the amount payable under Section 28A of the Act is the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the benefits of enhanced compensation even on those owners who did not seek a reference under Section 18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain benefit by reason of others getting such benefit should retain that benefit even though the others on the basis of whose claim compensation was enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation to an extent. This would be rather inequitable and unfair. Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 28A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the reference Court, we must understand the decree to mean the decree of the reference Court as modified in appeal by higher Courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge that a person who did not challenge the award of the Collector and did not claim a reference under Section 18 of the Act would get a higher compensation than the one who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed a reference, but in whose case a higher compensation determined by the reference Court was subsequently reduced by the superior Court. There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior Court in appeal. The principle of restitution must apply to them. There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior Court in appeal. The principle of restitution must apply to them. For the same reason, the same consequences must visit others who have been given benefit of enhanced compensation pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the application of others. 9. Thus, from the above legal position, it is clear that the compensation payable to the land owners, who did not seek reference, is the compensation that is ultimately paid to the land owners, who sought reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act, and as modified in further appeals.” 14. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. PRADEEP KUMARI AND OTHERS (supra 1) and U.O.I v. MUNSHI RAM (supra 2),this Court is of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in refusing to extend the benefit of Section 28-A of the Act in favour of the petitioners herein in terms of the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.1321/1994 dated 17.12.2002. 15. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the apex Court and this Court in the above referred Judgments, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents herein to consider the claim of the petitioners herein in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act for the purpose of re-determination of the compensation in terms of the enhanced compensation in the Judgment of this Court in A.S.1321/1994 dated 17.12.2002, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.