Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.ESWARA PRASAD, V.BHASKARA RAO
Marri Venkaiah - Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Srisailam Left Bank Channel Unit-2, Gandamvarigudem, Nalgonda Dist. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-24-93
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 28-A - INTERPRETATION - LIMITATION FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION - THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE AWARD OF THE CIVIL COURT, NOT FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, whose lands were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation on the basis of an enhanced compensation awarded by a civil court to other claimants whose lands were also acquired under the same notification. The Collector rejected the applications as barred by limitation, holding that they were filed after the expiry of the statutory period of three months from the date of the civil court's award. The petitioners challenged the Collector's orders by filing writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of compensation is three months from the date of knowledge of the award of the civil court, not from the date of the award. The court interpreted the expression "within three months from the date of the award of the Court" used in Section 28-A(1) of the Act to mean "within three months from the date of knowledge of the award of the Court, either actual or constructive." The court reasoned that since the petitioners were not parties to the O.Ps. before the civil court, it was not possible for them to have direct or personal knowledge of the proceedings in the O.F. much less the date on which the award was passed. Further, there was no rule or provision under the Act requiring the authorities to issue notice to all interested persons whose lands are covered by the same notification including those who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the limitation period for filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of compensation is three months from the date of the award of the civil court or from the date of knowledge of the award? 2. Whether the expression "within three months from the date of the award of the Court" used in Section 28-A(1) of the Act should be interpreted literally or in a more liberal way?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of compensation is three months from the date of knowledge of the award of the civil court, not from the date of the award. 2. The court interpreted the expression "within three months from the date of the award of the Court" used in Section 28-A(1) of the Act to mean "within three months from the date of knowledge of the award of the Court, either actual or constructive." The court reasoned that since the petitioners were not parties to the O.Ps. before the civil court, it was not possible for them to have direct or personal knowledge of the proceedings in the O.F. much less the date on which the award was passed. Further, there was no rule or provision under the Act requiring the authorities to issue notice to all interested persons whose lands are covered by the same notification including those who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Collector's orders rejecting the petitioners' applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court directed the Collector to entertain the applications and deal with them in accordance with law.
( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 1917 of 1990 is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") or, in the alternative, to make reference under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court for the enhancement of the compensation by declaring the Proceedings No. B/ 1043/89, dated 20-1-90 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, void and without jurisdiction.
( 2 ) WRIT Petition No, 6410 of 1990 is filed for a similar direction, viz. , for a direction declaring the order passed by the respondent in L. Dis. No. 2464/90, dated 21-4-1990, as illegal, and as a consequence thereto, direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner the re-determined compensation with regard to his lands comprising Ac. 1. 37 cents in S. No. 477/a and Ac. 1. 68 cents in S. No. 477/b2a of Perumanchala Village, in accordance with the compensation awarded in O. P. No. 1447 of 1987 on the file of Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, dated 7-11-1989.
( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 4979 of 1992 is filed for a direction declaring the order passed by the respondent in L. Dis. No. 3131 / 90, dated 25-1-1992, as illegal and as a consequence thereto direct the respondent to pay them the re-determined, compensation with regard to their lands situated in Thimmapuram village, Nandikotkur Taluk, Kurnool district in accordance with the compensation awarded in O. P. No. 1447 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, dated 7-11-1989.
( 4 ) WHEN these three writ petitions camo up before the learned Judges, Sri J. Eswara Prasad J. , (W. P. No. 1917 of 1990) and Sri V. Sivaraman Nair, J. , (W. P. No. 6410 of 1990), sitting single, they thought it fit, by separate orders, that the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court and referred the matter to a Division Bench. Hence, these three writ petitions are posted before us for final disposal. As the three writ petitions involve common issue, we dispose of the same by a common order.
( 5 ) AS the facts raised in all the writ petitions are common, for the purpose of convenience, it is desirable to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 6410 of 1990. In this writ petition, the land belonging to the petitioner, Boya Pothuraju, to an extent of Ac. 3. 00 situate in Parumanchala village, in addition to the lands belonging to some others including that of Smt. Madhavaram Bhagyamma, was notified by the Government under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 5-1-1977 in G. O. Rt. No. 5, Irrigation and Power (Irr. III) Department. The land belonging to Bhagyamma is to an extent of Ac. 9. 00 situate in the same village, viz, Parumanchala. Possession of the above land was taken by the Government on 24-3-1977. With regard to the lands of both Bhagyamma and the petitioner, an award was passed on 23-6-1977 by the Land Acquisition Officer, and a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- per acre was granted. Dissatisfied with the same, Smt. Bhagyamma sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, reference was made to the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool in O. P. No. 1447 of 1987. The learned Subordinate Judge has awarded an amount of Rs. 16,000/- per acre by way of compensation to Smt Bhagyamma, by his award dated 17-11-1989. Bhagyamma, inherited the said landed property from her parents. She was given in marriage to a person belonging to Pagidala, which is 30 K. M. away from Parumanchala where the petitioner is residing. The petitioner came to know through Bhagyamma in March, 1990 that she got enhanced compensation for the land acquired by the Government. After ascertaining the same, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the award in O. P. No. 1447 of 1987, and obtained the same on 15-3-1990. He filed an application on 7-4-1990 before the second respondent under Section 28-A of the Act requesting him to r
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
