Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 487 (TS)

Kasuganti Lakshman Kumar v. State of Telangana

2022-07-28

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents to pay the award amount with interest along with all statutory benefits as per the Award No. 26/2007-08 dated 27.03.2008 and refer the award proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in respect of the acquired land admeasuring Acs. 4-00 in Survey Nos. 536 and 538 situated at Muthyampet Villae, Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that he is owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1-39 guntas in Survey No. 536 and Acs. 2-01 guntas in Survey No. 538, totalling to Acs. 4-00. Originally, the said land was in the name of the petitioner’s father Mr. K. Sriranga Rao. The land was divided into equal shares as per partition in O.S. No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the petitioner was allotted half share. A total extent of Acs. 4-00 of land was acquired by the respondents for laying excavation for Flood Flow Canal from K.M. 80.000 to 81.000 and 81.000 to 82.000 in the limits of Muthyampet Village, Millial Mandal, Karimnagar District in 2005. In the said land, there were 120 mango trees, a well with pipeline facility for the garden and the same was recorded during enquiry and the petitioner is entitled for compensation under Category - A. 2.2. During award enquiry, as there were disputes between the petitioner and his father, respondent No. 4, having fixed the land value at Rs. 6,89,440/- per acre towards compensation for the acquired land, referred the matter vide letter No. B/46/2006 dated 19.07.2008 for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. 2.3. It is claimed by the petitioner that his father K. Sriranga Rao died on 23.02.2014 and as per the registered will deed dated 31.12.2013, he succeeded to the share of his father i.e. half of the land admeasuring Acs. 2-00 in Survey Nos. 536/2 and 538/2. 2.4. According to the petitioner, as there is no dispute, the entire compensation for the land acquired should have been paid to him. Further, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of correct market value vide application dated 19.11.2007. 2-00 in Survey Nos. 536/2 and 538/2. 2.4. According to the petitioner, as there is no dispute, the entire compensation for the land acquired should have been paid to him. Further, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of correct market value vide application dated 19.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents, having referred the matter under Section 30 of the Act (title dispute/apportionment) vide letter No. B/46/2006 dated 12.08.2008, have not referred the matter for reference under Section 18 of the Act (enhancement claim). Several representations have been submitted by the petitioner and due to inaction of the respondents, the instant writ petition is filed. 3. The case of respondent No. 6 as stated in the counter affidavit is that the awarded amount was deposited by respondent No. 4 in the civil Court vide reference No. B/46/2005 dated 12.08.2008 under Section 31(2) of the Act through the cheque bearing No. 398902 dated 12.08.2008 for a sum of Rs. 6,89,440/-. The cheque amount was not realised by the learned Senior Civil Judge within the validity period of one month, and therefore, the cheque was returned vide letter No. D.Dis.18346 dated 04.12.2008 for revalidation after four months by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial. The claim of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act was not considered by respondent No. 4 as there was title dispute with regard to the land under acquisition. The compensation amount will be deposited as and when funds are received. 4. Heard Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and perused the material on record. 5. Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that due to death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property as per the registered will deed dated 31.12.2013 and he is entitled to receive entire compensation for the acquired land of Acs. 4.00. As on the date of passing the award, assuming that there was dispute referrable under Section 30 of the Act, it was not necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to wait for resolution of title dispute for making reference under Section 18 of the Act. The references under Sections 30 and 18 of the Act are independent. 4.00. As on the date of passing the award, assuming that there was dispute referrable under Section 30 of the Act, it was not necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to wait for resolution of title dispute for making reference under Section 18 of the Act. The references under Sections 30 and 18 of the Act are independent. Even by the date of the award, the petitioner was having 50% share in the property for apportionment of compensation. Along with reference under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of compensation, reference under Section 18 of the Act should have simultaneously made to the Court concerned. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition submits that the reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be made until the reference under Section 30 of the Act is answered. 7. In the instant case, the reference under Section 30 of the Act is made on account of rival claims made for payment of compensation and for deciding the title dispute. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was preferred by the petitioner dissatisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed enhancement of compensation. There is no logic in keeping the reference under Section 18 of the Act pending until the reference under Section 30 of the Act is decided. A reference under section 30 of the Act may take several years and in normal course, the aggrieved party may file appeal before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, and therefore, may seek further remedy before the Supreme Court. If reference under Section 18 of the Act will have to wait subject to outcome of the reference under Section 30 of the Act, there will be heavy burden on the State exchequer. The Land Acquisition Officer appears to have lost sight of the statutory benefits available under the Act like payment of interest at 9% per annum for the first year, and 15% interest per annum from second year onwards payable to the land owner/claimant. Such interest has to be paid for the differential amount when compensation is enhanced not only for the principal amount but also on the solatium. There is no law or logic in keeping on hold reference under Section 18 of the Act until reference under Section 30 of the Act is answered. Such interest has to be paid for the differential amount when compensation is enhanced not only for the principal amount but also on the solatium. There is no law or logic in keeping on hold reference under Section 18 of the Act until reference under Section 30 of the Act is answered. After award is passed, the Land Acquisition Officer become functus officio and the moment he receives the application under Section 18 of the Act, he does not have any choice but to refer the matter to the civil Court. Even if there is dispute under Section 30 of the Act, simultaneously reference under Section 18 of the Act will have to be made. In the instant case, if the petitioner’s claim under Section 30 of the Act is rejected, then automatically reference under Section 18 of the Act will also to be consequently rejected. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s claim under Section 30 of the Act is allowed or partly allowed, then in the same proportion, enhancement will be awarded to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act. However, surprisingly the respondent has taken a stand that due to civil dispute, reference under Section 18 of the Act is not made. Such stand of respondent No. 2 is improper and as stated above defies any logic. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the matter shall be referred forthwith to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As it is stated that due to some administrative reasons reference under Section 30 of the Act was also not made, the respondents are directed to refer the matter under Sections 30 and 18 of the Act to the concerned civil Court who shall conduct simultaneous enquiry in both the reference petitions. As the reference under Sections 30/31 of the Act was made in 2008, it is desirable that both the reference O.P. shall be disposed of within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of references. 9. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that as per the will deed dated 31.12.2013, he became owner of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 that fell to the share of his father and thus entitled to receive entire compensation for Acs. 4.00 of land, this Court is not convinced with the submission of the learned senior counsel. 9. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that as per the will deed dated 31.12.2013, he became owner of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 that fell to the share of his father and thus entitled to receive entire compensation for Acs. 4.00 of land, this Court is not convinced with the submission of the learned senior counsel. It is not the case of the petitioner that there are no other legal heirs of his father late Mr. K. Sriranga Rao. Genuineness of the will deed including a registered one has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner shall take steps to implead other legal heirs of late Mr. K. Sriranga Rao in the reference O.P. under Sections 30 and 18 of the Act and the matter has to be decided on merits. 10. With the directions and observations as above, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.