Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 141 (AP)

N. Ananda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-03-08

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER: 1. The controversy involved in the writ petition, inter alia, is with regard to treating the land of an extent of Acs.1.69 cents out of Acs.5.05 cents in survey No.303/2 of Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapur District, of the petitioner, as a part of industrial park of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (A.P.I.I.C.) in the said village and handing over the same to respondent No.7. 2. Heard Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.V.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents Nos.1 to 4, Mr.J.Ugra Narasimha, learned standing counsel for A.P.I.I.C. appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Mr.K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 3. (i) While advancing arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an auction conducted by Ananthapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, one Mr.K.H.Muniappa purchased the land of an extent of Acs.5.05 cents and a sale certificate dated 03.07.1996 was issued to him and that through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.2011, the petitioner purchased the said land and was placed in possession of the same. The learned counsel submits that prior to the said sale, as the registration authorities were not accepting the documents for registration, the petitioner’s vendor filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.29731 of 2010 and by an order dated 29.11.2010, the said writ petition was allowed in terms of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittor District and another v. K.Guruvaiah and another, 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB) with a direction to the Sub-Registrar to receive the document-in-question and register the same, subject to complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He also submits that the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the above said extent of land and issued pattadar passbook etc.,. Further that ROR Form-1B and adangals also reflects the name of the petitioner as pattadar and enjoyer, which confirms that the said land is his private patta land. He also submits that the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the above said extent of land and issued pattadar passbook etc.,. Further that ROR Form-1B and adangals also reflects the name of the petitioner as pattadar and enjoyer, which confirms that the said land is his private patta land. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that having found that some constructions were made in his property referred to above, the petitioner got the survey of the same conducted on 14.08.2019 in the presence of A.P.I.I.C. and the revenue officials and later, it transpired that A.P.I.I.C. allotted an extent of Acs.1.69 cents, out of the said extent of Acs.5.05 cents, to respondent No.7 treating the private land of the petitioner, as if it is a part of A.P.I.I.C. industrial park. He submits that aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed and a learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.09.2019 directed the parties to maintain statusquo, which was extended from time to time. The learned counsel submits that subsequently, after filing of the counter-affidavits by the concerned respondents and considering the submissions, an order dated 06.11.2020 was passed, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “…After issuing notices to the 5th and 6th respondents filed their counter and additional counter affidavit on 09.12.2019. In their counter affidavit they have specifically stated that by mistake they have included the subject lands in the list of acquired lands, and the respondents undertake to pay compensation as per the rules of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (also Land Acquisition Act, 2013) for this particular land following due process of law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even the same was brought to the notice of the concerned respondents, but they have not acted upon it and they are dragging the matter for years together. Learned Government Pleader appearing for AAG and the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC Limited undertook that they are ready to complete the process within a short period by constituting a committee as per Rule 8 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader appearing for AAG and the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC Limited undertook that they are ready to complete the process within a short period by constituting a committee as per Rule 8 of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents i.e., the State as well as APIIC Limited are directed to complete the process and file a report before this Court as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner undertakes to cooperate.” (iii) The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the above said orders, the District Level Negotiations Committee constituted in terms of Rule 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2018 convened a meeting on 08.01.2021 and surprisingly the entire extent of Acs.5.05 cents was brought into purview of negotiations, though the extent involved in the lisis Acs.1.69 cents. He submits that the petitioner was pressurized to voluntarily give the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents and the officers informed that they would deprive the petitioner of the entire extent, if the same is not agreed to. Be that as it may, the learned counsel submits that the negotiations did not fructify and though the said Committee referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (L.A.R.R.) Authority, the same is not valid and has no legal efficacy and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) (for short ‘the Act’) does not provide for referring the matter under Section 64 of the said Act, in the absence of an award. (iv) In elaboration, he submits that Section 64 of the Act contemplates reference to the L.A.R.R. Authority when a person interested has not accepted the award, that the said provision has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as no award was passed in terms of Section 23 of the Act and further that the same would arise only in the event the mandatory provisions which precede Section 23 of the Act have been strictly followed and adhered to. He submits that it is not a case of negotiations for voluntary acquisition as provided under Sections 23A and 30A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 being materialized. He submits that it is not a case of negotiations for voluntary acquisition as provided under Sections 23A and 30A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 being materialized. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel submits that if the petitioner is not willing for voluntary acquisition, the statutory provisions providing for compulsory acquisition have to be invoked. He submits that the respondent authorities, under the guise of the orders passed by the Court, cannot take advantage of the same and give a go-bye to the statutory mandate. He also submits that the Act does not contemplate/provide a reference to the L.A.R.R. Authority when there is a failure of negotiations for voluntary acquisition and in such circumstances, the reference as in the present case constitutes fraud on statute. Further, that the respondent authorities are acting arbitrarily and in contravention of the provisions of the Act, which is discernable from their conduct in expanding the scope of the negotiations by including the total extent of Acs.5.05 cents instead of Acs.1.69 cents and the same constitutes abuse of power and malice in law. The learned counsel further filed detailed written submissions dated 15.02.2021 and additional written submissions dated 19.02.2021 along with the copies of citations in support of the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. (v) Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel submits that as admittedly the petitioner’s land of an extent of Acs.1.69 cents is treated as land of A.P.I.I.C. and further it is alienated to respondent No.7 without any due notice/following due procedure contemplated under Law and by paying compensation in terms of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly, prays that the writ petition be allowed. 4. Percontra, learned Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for respondents Nos.1 to 4, while refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter land is an assigned land; in fact a huge extent of about Acs.1100 was acquired for establishing an industrial park and possession of the subject matter land was resumed legally vide proceedings dated 02.01.2008 by fixing the exgratiaas per the Government orders in vogue, accordingly the same is vested with the Government and later, it was handed over to A.P.I.I.C. on 20.11.2008. Thus, the learned Government Pleader submits that as on the date of purchase by the petitioner on 14.03.2011, the petitioner’s vendor himself has no valid title and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim rights over the subject matter land. He further submits that if at all, the petitioner is entitled to exgratia, which is lying in deposit as it is not paid to anybody in respect of the subject matter land and it is not open to him to claim any other amounts, muchless in terms of the Act. While denying that the petitioner was pressurized to give the total land voluntarily, he submits that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the issue was taken up by the District Level Negotiations Committee for determination of fair compensation and entire extent of Acs.5.05 cents was placed for consideration before it inasmuch as the same was resumed in 2008 itself including an extent of Acs.1.69 cents which is a part of it. He submits that the same cannot be found fault with and by following the criteria in terms of Section 26 of the Act as if an award is being passed, the District Level Negotiations Committee by taking the prices of comparative sales in and around the subject matter land, arrived at just compensation payable, though the petitioner is not entitled to the same in view of the submissions made earlier. He further submits that as the petitioner was claiming Rs.70 lakhs per acre without any material and the same is not in accordance with Section 26 of the Act, the District Level Negotiations Committee referred the matter to L.A.R.R. Authority and that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the determination of compensation by the said Authority, he can agitate against the same before the appropriate Forum. He also submits that the petitioner, having agreed for resolution of the issues before the Statutory Committee, cannot turn around and question the proceedings before it, more particularly, when the Committee took up the matter in the light of the interim directions of this Court. While referring to para 15 of the counter-affidavit, learned Government Pleader submits that the stand of the Government is clear as set out therein and in fact A.P.I.I.C. is not the concerned authority to agree for payment to the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents in terms of the Act. While referring to para 15 of the counter-affidavit, learned Government Pleader submits that the stand of the Government is clear as set out therein and in fact A.P.I.I.C. is not the concerned authority to agree for payment to the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents in terms of the Act. In the earlier writ petition pertaining to the subject matter land referred to above, the learned Government Pleader submits that orders were obtained without disclosing the relevant facts and the land was got deleted from Section 22A(1)(e) list of the Registration Act, 1908. He further submits that all the orders on which reliance is placed by the petitioner were passed after resumption of the land in the year 2008 as stated supra and the same are of no avail to the petitioner. He submits that Government had rightly allotted the land to A.P.I.I.C. which in turn made over to respondent No.7 for establishment of an industry as a part of its industrial policy and further that respondent No.7 is unable to function in view of the interim orders granted in the present writ petition and not in a position to recycle the metal and accordingly submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned standing counsel for A.P.I.I.C. appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, while supporting the arguments of the learned Government Pleader submits that A.P.I.I.C. has taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit that the subject matter land was handed over to it in the year 2008 itself and further that when the issue with regard to non-registration of subject matter land was considered in W.P.No.29731 of 2010, the crucial aspect that the land was already in possession of A.P.I.I.C. and part of development of industrial park etc., appears to have been not brought to the notice of this Court and A.P.I.I.C. had no occasion to point out the same as it was not a party. Despite the above position, the learned counsel, however, submits that to put a quietus to this issue, more particularly, for the reasons set out in the additional counter-affidavit, A.P.I.I.C. undertook to pay due compensation as per the Act for the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents. Despite the above position, the learned counsel, however, submits that to put a quietus to this issue, more particularly, for the reasons set out in the additional counter-affidavit, A.P.I.I.C. undertook to pay due compensation as per the Act for the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents. He submits that the petitioner having agreed to go before the District Level Negotiations Committee in terms of the order dated 06.11.2020, claimed more amounts than the compensation fixed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as it is beyond the purview of the District Level Negotiations Committee, the same was referred to L.A.R.R. Authority and that the same cannot be projected as failure of negotiations. He submits that the attempt to project the order dated 06.11.2020 as nullity cannot be appreciated and this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, can pass any appropriate orders. He also submits that pending decision of the L.A.R.R. Authority, the interim orders may be modified as the same are seriously affecting the functioning of respondent No.7 and further A.P.I.I.C.’s task of attracting and facilitating new foreign investments into the State is being jeopardised. 6. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.7, inter alia, submits that respondent No.7 purchased plot Nos.59C and 59D comprising of an extent of Acs.2.25 cents situated at A.P.I.I.C. industrial park in survey Nos.303 (part) and 304 (part) through registered sale deed dated 05.09.2018 executed by A.P.I.I.C. and after handing over possession of the same, respondent No.7 invested huge amounts, established factory and started commercial operations after obtaining all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities. While referring to the various relevant aspects with regard to setting up of respondent No.7 etc., he submits that recycling unit as established by respondent No.7 is first of its kind in the State of Andhra Pradesh and India and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court, its operations are hampered. He submits that the petitioner, without disclosing the correct facts and claiming that respondent No.7 is in possession of his property, filed the present writ petition and obtained interim orders. He submits that the petitioner has no valid rights in the subject matter land which was originally an assigned land and later, resumed and allotted to A.P.I.I.C. from whom the petitioner acquired valid title. He submits that the petitioner has no valid rights in the subject matter land which was originally an assigned land and later, resumed and allotted to A.P.I.I.C. from whom the petitioner acquired valid title. He submits that unless the interim orders are modified, respondent No.7 would be compelled to shut down the factory, exposed to irreparable loss and the employment of locals would be affected. He further submits that respondent No.7 was constrained to file a separate writ petition viz., W.P.No.15170 of 2020 as it was not permitted to withdraw the machinery and equipment kept in its recycling unit which is subjected to wear and tear. He accordingly seeks appropriate orders. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the respective counsel referred to above, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for or any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. Though elaborate arguments were advanced by both sides, the matter requires to be considered, interalia, in the context of order dated 06.11.2020 referring to the undertaking of the respondents to pay compensation as per Rules framed under the Act following due process of law. In this regard as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to above and is evident from record, the authorities have brought in the entire extent of Acs.5.05 cents before the District Level Negotiations Committee. Though the learned Government Pleader tried to justify the said action in referring the total extent of Acs.5.05 cents for consideration of the Committee in stead of Acs.1.69 cents, which is the subject matter of lis, this Court is unable to accept the same as the reference to the Committee is a consequence to the order dated 06.11.2020 in respect of Acs.1.69 cents only and there can be no second opinion. Despite the stand taken that the land was resumed in 2008, it was agreed to pay compensation as per the provisions of the Act to the said extent of Acs.1.69 cents only not by way of concession, but even as per the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of A.P.I.I.C., though on the premise to put a quietus and protect interest of respondent No.7, thereby investments into the State by foreign companies would not be crippled. Therefore, this Court is in complete agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities expanded the scope of reference extending it to the entire extent of Acs.5.05 cents which was never agreed upon nor the order of the Court contemplate so. Therefore, the inclusion of total extent of Acs.5.05 cents for whatever reasons might be, is not tenable and the contentions of the learned Government Pleader in this regard are rejected. 9. Apropos the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the negotiations failed and therefore, the respondents have to put possession of Acs.1.69 cents back to the petitioner or compensation in terms of the Act has to be paid, it is to be appreciated that once the negotiations have not been fructified before the District Level Negotiations Committee, the authorities are required to initiate proceedings under the Act, more particularly, in view of the undertaking dated 06.11.2020 as also in the light of the specific stand by A.P.I.I.C. in the additional counter-affidavit. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of referring the matter to the L.A.R.R. Authority would arise only in the event any person interested who has not accepted the ‘award’ (emphasis supplied) seeks reference of the same to the authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act. It is profitable to extract Section 64 of the Act, which deals with reference to the Authority, for ready reference, and the same reads as under: 64. It is profitable to extract Section 64 of the Act, which deals with reference to the Authority, for ready reference, and the same reads as under: 64. Reference to Authority.– (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made— (a) person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector‘s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector‘s award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.” 10. In the present case, no award has been passed muchless in terms of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of an award in terms of the provisions of the Act, the reference as made to the L.A.R.R. Authority as was done by the District Level Negotiations Committee would have no legal efficacy. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard merits acceptance. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of an award in terms of the provisions of the Act, the reference as made to the L.A.R.R. Authority as was done by the District Level Negotiations Committee would have no legal efficacy. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard merits acceptance. However, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be granted appropriate relief, instead of a direction to restore possession. 11. With regard to the contentions of the learned Government Pleader that the subject matter land was resumed and handed over to A.P.I.I.C., in the same year i.e., 2008 and the petitioner who is the second purchaser in the year 2011 is not entitled for compensation in terms of the Act, but only to exgratia, the same deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. The issue is narrowed down in view of the specific assertion that A.P.I.I.C. would pay compensation to the land of an extent of Acs.1.69 cents as per the provisions of the Act. Further, the land-in-question was the subject matter land in W.P.No.29731 of 2010, wherein the concerned revenue officials, including the District Collector and the concerned Tahsildar are arrayed as parties and an order dated 29.11.2010 was passed in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. No objection appears to have been raised to the effect that the land was resumed or handed over to A.P.I.I.C. by the revenue officials. Prior to that, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s vendor purchased the subject matter land, which was mortgaged to a Cooperative Bank through a public auction on 15.04.1997 and the land can no longer be treated as an assigned land. Thus, the rights in the lands vests with the auction purchaser and the question of resumption of land from original assignee in the year 2008 does not arise at all and such resumption if any would not be valid in the eye of law. Even subsequently when the application for deletion of the subject matter land from Section 22A(1)(e) list came up for consideration, it would appear that the aspect of resumption of land and handing over of the same was discussed, but the District Level Committee consisting of revenue officials took a decision to recommend the claim for deletion in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the rights accrued to the petitioner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.03.2011 were tacitly accepted by the revenue authorities and interference with the same, except in accordance with law would be illegal. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has no valid title or entitled for only exgratia which was lying in deposit merits no consideration and the same are, accordingly, rejected. 12. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, this Court is required to consider the reliefs to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, in view of the construction of the factory and commencement of operations by respondent No.7 in the subject matter land and the additional counter-affidavit of A.P.I.I.C. offering to pay compensation in terms of the Act, for the reasons specified therein. But for the above position, perhaps, the relief as sought for by the petitioner to restore possession of the land merits acceptance. However, the reliefs can be moulded by this Court on an overall appreciation of relevant aspects and in the interest of Justice. Therefore, keeping in view the undisputed fact that respondent No.7 established factory in the subject matter land and commenced its operations, the relief sought for to restore the land to the petitioner in its original condition, is disallowed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the official respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.1.69 cents referred to above strictly adhering to the provisions of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.