Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 166 (TS)

Burra Laxmi v. Land Acquisition Officer

2022-03-09

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra Sharma, J. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 12.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.21910 of 2002. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellants/writ petitioners, who are small farmers and owners of land situate at Bhoopalpally Village, Warangal District, came up before this Court by filing the above writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the Civil Court. 3. The facts would further reveal that land to an extent of Acs.192.12 gts. situate in Survey Nos.326, 327 and 328 belonging to writ petitioners, was subjected to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent and an award was passed in the matter. The writ petitioners submitted original applications/petitions on 11.04.2000 for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. It was stated by the writ petitioners in the aforesaid applications that the subject land was being used for cultivation and they have raised mango, lime, coconut gardens and also raised eucalyptus, eppa, kududu and tunki trees, and therefore, enhancement was sought for Rs.21,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The sole grievance of the writ petitioners was that their applications were not forwarded to the Civil Court. Admittedly, the Award was passed on 14.03.2000, and the writ petition was filed in the year 2002. Counter-affidavit was filed in the matter, and the State Government took a plea that the applications preferred by writ petitioners under Section 18 of the Act are not available, and there are no entries in the Inward Register. The matter was again taken up on 02.07.2010, and the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants took time to file reply-affidavit. The reply-affidavit was filed and along with the reply-affidavit copies of the original applications/petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act were enclosed. In the reply-affidavit, the writ petitioners also brought on record the acknowledgments in receipt of the original applications/petitions obtained by them; and it was also stated that the Inward Register, which has been filed by the State Government, is not relevant for the period in question. In the reply-affidavit, the writ petitioners also brought on record the acknowledgments in receipt of the original applications/petitions obtained by them; and it was also stated that the Inward Register, which has been filed by the State Government, is not relevant for the period in question. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by passing the following order which is reproduced as under : “ORDER : The extent of Acs.192.12 in S.Nos.326, 327, 328 etc., situated at Bhoopalpally Village in Warangal District, was proposed to be acquired for mining in KTK-5 & 5A of Singareni Collieries. Petitioners are allegedly residents of Bhoopalpally Village owning different extents of lands where they raised mango, lime, coconut gardens and also raised eucalyptus, eppa, kukudu and tunki trees. Petitioners allegedly submitted applications on 11.04.2000 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) to the Civil Court. They sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Alleging that the respondent failed to refer the cases to Civil Court, they filed instant writ petition on 31.10.2002. The counter-affidavit is filed admitting the acquisition and passing of award for Rs.21,000/- per acre. It is however stated that petitioners’ counsel did not submit any application on 11.04.2000 and that there are no entries in the Inward Register. The matter was called on 02.07.2010. At the request of the counsel for petitioners, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioners to file reply-affidavit. A reply affidavit is filed enclosing the copies of original applications/petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that counsel for petitioners submitted applications/petitions under Section 18 of the Act to respondent and also obtained acknowledgments in receipt of the applications on the face of copies of applications. It is also stated that Inward Register containing 37 pages is not for the relevant period. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition). Petitioners have denied the allegation in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners did not make any applications under Section 18 of the Act. They also relied on the Photostat copies of the petitions filed before the respondent with a stamp and seal on the left top of the applications. Petitioners have denied the allegation in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners did not make any applications under Section 18 of the Act. They also relied on the Photostat copies of the petitions filed before the respondent with a stamp and seal on the left top of the applications. In typed copies of the petitions filed along with writ petition, it is however shown the office seal of the respondent is on the left bottom of the applications. Secondly, if the petitioners’ counsel submitted petitions to respondent and obtained stamp thereon, they ought to have made such averment in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. They did not do so. Therefore, this Court is convinced that as an afterthought petitioners appear to have concocted stamp and seal on the copies of petitioners, which are now produced before this Court after lapse of eight years after filing the writ petition. Thirdly, the Assistant Government Pleader has produced before this Court the Inward Register from the Office of respondent. There are entries on 04.04.2000 and 15.04.2000. There are no entries between those days. In the absence of any such entry, an inference in favour of petitioners cannot be accepted. Nextly, it is admitted by petitioners that all of them participated in the award enquiry and claimed compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. If that be so, nothing prevented them to protest. There is not even an allegation that petitioners protested before the Land Acquisition Officer. In such an event, second proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 31 of the Act is attracted and petitioners are not entitled to make applications under Section 18 of the Act. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.” 4. The learned Single Judge has disbelieved the writ petitioners and has placed heavy reliance on the statement made by the State Government that no such applications were preferred by the writ petitioners. It has been further observed that the seal and stamp on the copies of applications filed by writ petitioners is not affixed at the same place where it is affixed in respect of other applications preferred under Section 18 of the Act. It has been further observed that the seal and stamp on the copies of applications filed by writ petitioners is not affixed at the same place where it is affixed in respect of other applications preferred under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Single Judge has also gone to the extent in holding that the writ petitioners have concocted stamp and seal on the applications, and the applications were produced before the Court after lapse of eight years after filing of the writ petition. 5. The record of the case reveals that in respect of writ petition filed in the year 2002, the State Government filed counter-affidavit only in the year 2010; and there was inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in filing the counter-affidavit. The State Government in the year 2010, while filing the counter-affidavit on 16.06.2010, came up for the first time stating that no application under Section 18 has been preferred by the farmers/writ petitioners. It was only after 16.06.2010 that petitioners got an opportunity to controvert the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, and in 2010 itself, reply-affidavit was filed by the farmers/writ petitioners on 07.07.2010, and therefore, the delay could have been attributed to the farmers/writ petitioners in not bringing the application on record. Learned Single Judge has also observed that there was no protest made before the Land Acquisition Officer by the farmers/writ petitioners though they were granted less compensation. 6. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide for any such kind of protest which has been referred in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It only provides for an application under Section 18 to be filed in the matter. 7. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 reads as under : “18. Reference to Court : -(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 Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every such application shall be made, (a) if the 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 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” 8. In the present case, the applications were preferred under Section 18 of the Act on 11.04.2000 in respect of award passed by the respondent on 14.03.2000. The applications which were filed (in case the applications were not available as it was an old case) with the Land Acquisition Officer and which were filed before this Court, should have been treated as an application under Section 18 of the Act, and the Civil Court should have been directed to proceed ahead in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The applicants cannot be left without remedy especially when they are claiming compensation on a higher rate in respect of their valuable land which was acquired by the State. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the applications which are on record shall be treated as applications preferred under Section 18 of the Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer shall forward the same to the Civil Court as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within a period of thirty (30) days from to-day. 10. The Civil Court shall be free to proceed ahead in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate order within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of such record from the Land Acquisition Officer. 11. The applications were filed before the Civil Court within time, as stated in the affidavit, and therefore the applications shall be considered on merits only and the claim of the applicants will not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.