Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.REDDAPPA REDDY, M.N.RAO
Birbugan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, R.D.O., Hyderabad East Division, R.R.District - Respondent
W.A.No.1395/89
Decided On : 10-27-92
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy
Held : The reference is valid. The dispute is that because of the operation of the Ceiling Act which limits the quantum of compensation to the outer limit of two lakh rupees, the claimants cannot receive the entire compensation awarded under the L.A. Act. What is the extent of land under the Ceiling Act, the claimants would be entitled to retain and what would be the excess land could be known only after the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were completed. When that stage has not been reachec4 it would not be open to the claimants to contend that the entire compensation under the L.A. Act should be given to them. The proceedings under the Ceiling Act when finalised would determine the Ceiling limit of the claimants and only in respect of that extent of land they would be entitled to the compensation under the provisions of the L. A. Act and in regard to the rest of the acquired land, the compensation is payable only in accordance with the proceedings of the Ceiling Act. This is the dispute regarding the apportionment and therefore, reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 was made validly.
The effect of Section 42 of the Ceiling Act is that any provision in any other law inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Ceiling Act has no effect. The overriding effect given to the Ceiling Act is a bar to any plea based upon any provision in the L.A. Act for the purpose of obtaining compensation in respect of a land to, which the Ceiling Act applies at a rate higher than what the later enactment permits. The vesting of he acquired land in the Government under the provisions of the L.A. Act free from all encumbrances will not alter the legal position in regard to the applicability of the Ceiling Act for the purpose of payment of compensation.
W.A. Dismissed.
( 2 ) THE land is question is situate in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and is included in the Master plan with the specification that it is intended for a purpose other than agriculture.
( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single judge it was contended that as there is no dispute either in regard to the title or entitlement to receive compensation the reference to civil court under Sec. 30 was illegal. The consequence of possession being taken on 4-7-79 is that the land was vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances under Sec. 17 (1) of the L. A. Act.
( 4 ) BOTH the contentions were negatived by the learned single Judge taking the view that although statutorily the land was vested free from all encumbrances in the Government by virtue of Sec. 16 read with Sec. 17 (5) of the L. A. Act, he entitlement to compensation must be adjudicated only after the determination of the excess land under Sec. 9 and notification in that regard issued under sec. 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act. As the provisions of the Ceiling Act prevail over the provisions of the L. A. Act by virtue of Section 42 of the former Act, the State has a right to receive compensation under the Ceiling Act to the extent of the excess vacant land to be determined ultimately by the competent authority under the ceiling Act.
( 5 ) SHRI. P. Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that when once possession was taken either under Sec. 16 or 17 of the L. A. Act, the land would be vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and so it cannot be said that any land is available for determination of the ceiling limits under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Whatever power the Government has, is traceable only to a situation obtaining prior to taking over of possession, but not thereafter. Unless the excess land is determined and compensation paid under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act, the State Government will have no right either to retain the compensation amount awarded to the appellants or to claim any share out of it as representing the value of the excess land under the Ceiling act.
( 6 ) IN opposition to this the learned Government Pleader has contended that by virtue of Section 42 of the Ceiling Act, the app
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
