Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
K.P.Hussian Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, M.I.Division, Nandyal - Respondent
Decided On : 10-11-02
Held : Awarding of compensation is public law remedy and available in a claim for deprivation of life and liberty alone. The compensation awarded is for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by the person due to illegal detention/ imprisonment and is given to recompense for the inconvenience and distress suffered by the person. The order of compensation is in the nature of palliative and is passed to mulct the violators of the fundamental rights in payment of monetary compensation. When a person is arrested and imprisoned with malicious intention his constitutional and legal rights are said to be invaded. The malice and invasion of the right is not washed away by setting the person free and in appropriate cases the Court has jurisdiction to award compensation to the victim. The public law remedy of monetarily compensating the violation of fundamental rights is part of the constitutional scheme based on strict liability for such contravention of rights and therefore the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply as it applies in private law. Judicially evolved right to compensation in public law is available for breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right, but it is given for infringement of inalienable right to life and by way of applying balm to the wounds of the deceased family. For the tortious acts of the government Officers and Police officers, the State is liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights to life and liberty. The order for awarding compensation need not be in the coercive form. It can be by way of declardtion of the right of the person to be paid by the government certain amount to be assessed by the Court. This is especially so in a case where fundamental right to property is breached in violation of law. Lastly, it must be remembered that fundamental rights in Part-Ill of the constitution provide a charter of dos and don ts. They only bind on the State and not an individual. If an individual transgresses or violates the fundamental rights of others, the same does not give rise to action under public law. When there is a dispute in tort between two individuals, the State cannot be compelled to pay compensation for violation of fundamental right of others.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23, 24, 28 & 34 - Land Acquisition - Compensation claim - A person whose land is acquired and a person who has a grievance regarding compensation awarded to him or a person who disputes the apportionment cannot approach the Civil Court - Cognizance of such matters by Civil Court, barred.
Held : Section 23 of the Act deals with matters to be considered in determining compensation. Section 24 of the Act deals with matters to be ignored in determining compensation. Section 28 provides that the civil Court may award interest on the excess of the sum determined by the Court at the rate of 9% per annum. Section 34 of the Act also deals with payment of interest. It ordains that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 4% per annum from the time of taking possession until the amount is paid. Therefore, the authorities under the Act are required to pass Awards keeping in view the principles laid down in these provisions.
The Land acquisition Officer or the Civil Court cannot take into consideration any other matters or factors while determining the compensation.
A plain reading of Section 24 shows that degree of urgency which led to acquisition and any disinclination of person interested to part with the land acquired are irrelevant for the purpose of determining compensation. Further, Section 23 or Sec. 24 does not in any manner refer to any compensation to be awarded or not to be awarded by reason of delay in passing the award or by reason of the pendency of the matter before the Civil Court. This Court cannot introduce a new ground in Section 23 and order awarding of compensation on the ground that there has been delay in paying compensation or passing the Award. For that matter, if the matter is pending in reference under Section 18 of the Act in Civil court or by way of appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the appellate Court or High court the person whose land is acquired cannot complain that due to delay in giving finality to the Award, he should be awarded more compensation by way of damages. The law does not contemplate such additional compensation.
( 1 ) IN 1993 there was a breach of tank bund of Bhupanapadu Minor Irrigation tank, in panyam Mandal of Kurnool District of andhra Pradesh. As there was an emergency to fill up the breach to prevent further damage, the petitioners land admeasuring Acs. 8. 68 in S. Nos. 423, 426, 432, 433, 434 and 435 of Neravada village was utilized and the breach was repaired. The petitioners, who claim to be small and marginal farmers are before this Court alleging that though the respondents took possession of the land on 11-10-1994, no compensation has so far been paid. They placed reliance on a communication dated 9-7-2000 sent by the Revenue Divisional officer, Nandyal to the Executive Engineer, minor Irrigation Works, requesting the latter to provide an amount of Rs. 4,67,622/- to meet the land acquisition charges. As the respondents failed to complete the necessary formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), the petitioners are before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the market value at Rs. 2. 00 lakhs per acre for wet land and at the rate of Rs. 1. 00 lakh per acre for dry land.
( 2 ) THIS Court issued Notice before admission. After receiving notices, the Chief engineer, Minor Irrigation Department entered appearance through the learned government Pleader for Irrigation. When the matter was listed on 18-3-2002 the learned Government Pleader submitted that there was discrepancy with regard to exact extent of the land utilized for filling up of breach of Bhupanapadu Minor Irrigation tank and therefore there was delay in acquiring the land. He also submitted, on instructions, that necessary steps are being taken for initiating and completing land acquisition proceedings. He also stated that the land acquisition proceedings will be completed within a period of six months.
( 3 ) ON 18-3-2002 having regard to the submissions made by the learned government Pleader, this Court disposed of the matter recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader to the effect that the land acquisition proceedings will be completed within a period of six months. After dictation of the order, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy appeared and submitted that the petitioners are claiming compensation for violation of their fundamental right and therefore the matter be heard on that question. The matter was directed to be listed for being mentioned and the learned Additional advocate General was requested to assist the Court. The matter was heard at length on the question whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for depriving them of enjoyment of land and denying timely compensation. This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned additional Advocate General Sri K. Prakash reddy.
( 4 ) BY the time the matter was heard on the question of liability of the respondents to pay compensation in addition to the sum due and payable under Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Act, a counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter- affidavit it is stated that when there was breach in the bund 6f Bhupanapadu Minor irrigation tank, there was great pressure from Ayacutdars of the Tank to close the breach immediately so that storage of water in the tank is not adversely affected. The repair works were taken up on priority basis immediately. Proposals for acquisition of land were sent by letter dt. 11-10-1994 to the sub-Collector, Nandyal, who addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, panyam, directing to conduct preliminary enquiry and submit draft notification and draft declaration. The Office of the first respondent sent reminders to Sub-Collector, nandyal on 22-3-1995 and 23-5-1995 and requesting to inform value of the land to enable the first respondent to deposit the amount. By letter dt. 2-6-1995 the first respondent addressed another letter to Sub- collect
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
