Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 927 (AP)

G. v. Satyanarayana VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-19

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to dig the canal across the petitioner's land in Sy.No.60/10 of Unagatla Revenue Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, without issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings either under land acquisition Act or under any other law as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner acquired agricultural land in an extent of Ac.4.78 cents inSy.No.60/10 of Unagatla Revenue Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, by way of registered settlement deed bearing document Nos.1146/81, dtd. 8/4/1981 and 1731/83, dtd. 15/6/1983, executed by his sister. Since then he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment without any interference from whom so ever concerned. The revenue authorities have mutated the petitioner's name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book bearing patta No.130 dtd. 4/7/1996. On 11/12/2010, the respondent authorities came to land in Sy.No.60/10 for digging the canal across the petitioner's property as if the land was already acquired under Land Acquisition Act, for which the petitioner resisted and demanded the respondent authorities to show the acquisition proceedings issued in their favour. The respondent authorities have failed to produce the same and then stalled the excavation work temporarily. It was proclaimed that the respondent authorities have already acquired the property for the purpose of Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme. Having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner preferred this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land acquired by him in an extent of Ac.4.78 cents in Sy.No.60/10 of Unagatla Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, by way of registered settlement deed bearing document nos.11146/81, dtd. 8/4/1981 and 1731/83, dtd. 15/6/1983. He further submits that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice or acquiring any part of the property as contemplated under Land Acquisition Act, are trying to dig the canal across the said land for the purpose of Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that if the respondent authorities are allowed to dig the canal across the said lands without following due process of law, he shall be deprived of his livelihood which would put him to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that if the respondent authorities are allowed to dig the canal across the said lands without following due process of law, he shall be deprived of his livelihood which would put him to suffer irreparable loss and hardship. He further submitted that he raised paddy crop, coconut and palm trees in the said land, and if they were damaged, it would cause irreparable loss. 5. He further contended that if any alleged award has been passed, or even an award as alleged is passed, they might have been deposited the award amount either in the account of the petitioner or to the credit of the Court below. But, the fact remains no such deposit was made by the respondent authorities. He further contended that therefore except 4(1) notification, the petitioner was never issued any notice calling for objections under sec. 5(a) of the Act or notice for the award and till today the subject lands are within the possession of the petitioner only. As such, the alleged acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not in accordance in law. He further contends that the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules 2014,(Hereafter Act 30 of 2013) envisages as under: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under sec. 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said sec. 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said sec. 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said sec. 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under sec. 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition mainly submits that the subject land was acquired under urgency clause for excavation of Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme Caqnal-14 of Distributory-15. He further submits that the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Nallajerla, on 27/6/2006, inspected the said land and submitted Draft Notification and Draft Declaration proposals to the Collector, West Godavari District, ROC.No.49/2006, dtd. 24/8/2006 under urgency clause i.e. U/s 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act dispensing with the enquiry under Sec. 5(1) of the said Act, which were accepted by the Collector, West Godavari District, vide ROC.No.5578/2006 (TLIS), dtd. 2/9/2006 and 15/9/2006. 7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that notices under Sec. 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published by affixing in the notice board of the Gram Panchayat Unagatla Village, Mandal Revenue Office, Chagallu Police Station and other required places and individual notices under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were also issued, further, the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to negotiate with ryots to obtain their consent to pass award. Accordingly, Form-I notice was issued inviting all ryots during the month of December, 2007 to state their willingness to settle the claims, through the negotiations committee. Accordingly, Form-I notice was issued inviting all ryots during the month of December, 2007 to state their willingness to settle the claims, through the negotiations committee. He further stated that in minor 14' the total length of minor is 3.00 Km, except inland of petition from 1.350 Km to 1.600 Km, Earth Work Excavation and CM & CD works in other reach were completed. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition mainly contended that the petitioner refused to receive an amount of Rs.3,39,964.00 which includes crop value of Rs.16,953.00 besides the land value of Rs.3,23,010.00 as compensation. He further stated that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court as the said land was acquired 5 years back and the entire process underwent is in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also contended that the petitioner without exhausting available channel of respondents approached this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that the allegations made contra are absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that, if, any award is passed in the absence of the person interested, a notice required under Sec. 12(2) has to be served on the person interested, but, there is no such averment made in the counter affidavit. He further stated, the allegation that consent award was passed is absolutely incorrect and the same is invented for the purpose of covering the laches on the part of the respondent authorities in following the statutory mandate of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 10. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served any notice is tenable in the absence of any evidence put forth by the respondents along with their counter affidavit. 10. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served any notice is tenable in the absence of any evidence put forth by the respondents along with their counter affidavit. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation of the land was not taken over by the respondents, still today the awarded compensation amount which was refused by the petitioner is neither deposited into the account of the petitioner nor into the credit of the Court also is sustainable for the reason that there is no evidence either about compensation of the land or particulars submitted by the learned Government Pleader in their counter except merely stating that the petitioner refused to receive the amount. Moreover, if the respondents are initiated to deposit into the credit of the Court, nobody can prevent them to do so. 11. Admittedly, they did not choose to deposit either in the account of the petitioner or into the credit of the Court. Therefore, as contended by the petitioner, the present case which comes under the ambit of Sec. 24 of Act 30 of 2013, by which the entire acquisition proceedings against the petitioner as well as the subject land became lapsed also should be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagannadha Industries v. District Collectors, 2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 680. wherein paragraph nos.20, 21 and 22 are held as under: "20. In Pune Municipal Corporation and anr., v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and ors., (1 supra) the Honble Apex Court at paragraph No.11, held as under: Sec. 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Sec. 24(1). Sec. 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz., (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Sec. 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Sec. 4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act. 21. In Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr., (2 supra) the Honble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.6 to 8 held as under. 6. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said sec. is required to be extracted. Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act is as under: Sec. 24: Land acquisition process under Act 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (a) where no award under Sec. 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said Sec. 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), in the case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award under the said Sec. 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Sec. 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 commences with a non obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this provision, if the physical possession of the land has not been taken by the acquiring authority though the award is passed and if the compensation has not been paid to the landowners or has not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, is deemed to have been lapsed. 7. Keeping the aforesaid provisions in view, we have specifically looked into the assertions made by the appellant and the way it is countered by the respondents. In our opinion though the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have not taken the physical possession of the land and have not paid the compensation to the appellant or had deposited the said compensation before an appropriate forum. 8. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, subsec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act squarely applies to the appellants case and the appellant is entitled to relief sought for in their petition. 22. In the instant case, the authorities passed Award on 20/8/2001 and the amount is right now lying in the revenue deposit and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the authorities took possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, as such, the impugned proceedings are also liable to be invalidated in view of the language employed in Sec. 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, and in view of the above mentioned authoritative pronouncement of the Honble Apex Court." 12. He also relied upon other judgment in the case of Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Others, (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 464. He also relied upon other judgment in the case of Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Limited v. State of Punjab and Others, (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 464. wherein paragraph no.20 is held as under: "Taking into account all the facts of the appeal as well as the consistent view taken by this Court on several occasions, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that acquisition proceedings insofar as the appellant is concerned lapsed with the enactment of the Act" 13. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that notice was served to the petitioner by way of announcement in the notice board of the Grama Panchayat Office in Unagatla village and Form-I notice was issued in the month of December, 2007 to obtain their consent through notification are not amount to service of notice to the petitioner as in compliance of the Act. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader that they obtained consent from the petitioner to pass award and they offered the award and sent award amount to the petitioner. But, he refused to receive the amount is also not believable in the absence of any evidence put forth along with the counter affidavit. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the entire acquisition proceedings are not in accordance with law and under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also in view of the Sec. 24 of the Act 30 of 2013. Therefore, the present acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.