Back
1991 Supreme(AP) 38
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
RF (Rasat and Farhat)Charitable Trust, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (General)Land Acquisition, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02-07-91
An agreement between a landowner and a housing board waiving the landowner's right to seek reference to the civil court for enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is valid and binding, and the landowner is estopped from claiming additional compensation for delay in completing the acquisition proceedings if the agreement does not specify a time limit for completion and the landowner has not taken any steps to terminate the agreement due to the delay.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURT - WAIVER OF RIGHT - AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANDOWNER AND HOUSING BOARD - VALIDITY - EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SEEK REFERENCE - PUBLIC POLICY - ESTOPPEL - DELAY IN COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public charitable trust, entered into an agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Housing Board) for the sale of its property for a housing scheme. The agreement included a clause waiving the appellant's right to seek reference to the civil court for enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The Housing Board acquired the property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in accordance with the agreement. The appellant challenged the Land Acquisition Officer's refusal to refer the matter to the civil court, arguing that the agreement was invalid and that the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings entitled it to additional compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement between the appellant and the Housing Board was valid and binding, and that the appellant had waived its right to seek reference to the civil court for enhanced compensation. The court also held that the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings did not entitle the appellant to additional compensation, as the agreement did not specify a time limit for the completion of the proceedings and the appellant had not taken any steps to terminate the agreement due to the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the appellant and the Housing Board was valid and binding, and whether the appellant had waived its right to seek reference to the civil court for enhanced compensation. 2. Whether the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings entitled the appellant to additional compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement between the appellant and the Housing Board was valid and binding, as it was entered into voluntarily and for consideration, and did not violate any public policy or statutory prohibition. The court also held that the appellant had waived its right to seek reference to the civil court for enhanced compensation, as the agreement specifically stated that the appellant would not claim any additional compensation beyond the amount agreed upon. 2. The court held that the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings did not entitle the appellant to additional compensation, as the agreement did not specify a time limit for the completion of the proceedings and the appellant had not taken any steps to terminate the agreement due to the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal, but directed the Housing Board to pay the appellant an additional compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as equitable compensation for the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings.
( 1 ) WHETHER reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be directed, on the facts of the case, is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.
( 2 ) THE acquisition of the land and building belonging to the petitioner-Trust under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 for the purpose of execution of a housing scheme by the Housing Board, has given rise to this writ proceeding. Under Section 40 of the Housing Board Act, the Housing Board may acquire the land either by entering into an agreement with the land owners or by way of compulsory acquisition in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the A. P. Housing Board Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Housing Board Act declares that "the acquisition of any land or any interest therein for the purpose of this Act shall be deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. " Section 40-A of the Housing Board Act lays down the modifications subject to which the Land Acquisition Act shall apply. The modification relevant for our purpose is the one contained in clause (a) which reads as follows :" (A) The publication of a draft notification under Section 22-A shall be substituted for and have the same effect as publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, and in the locality of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act has been previously made and is in force. . . . "that is how the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are relevant here though the acquisition is under the A. P. Housing Board Act. The occasion for filing the writ petition against which the present writ appeal is directed has arisen on account of the refusal of the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the civil Court. After the protest was recorded by the appellant against the award, the Land Acquisition Officer declined to make the reference on the ground that the appellant had waived the right for claiming higher amount under the terms of an agreement entered into between the appellant and the A. P. Housing Board. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned single Judge affirmed the order of the Land Acquisition Officer and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present writ appeal before us
( 3 ) FOLLOWING are the relevant facts : the appellant-writ petitioner is a public charitable trust which was constituted on 14-1-1972 by a Deed of Trust executed by Prince Muffakham Jah. The corpus of the Trust consisted of a building known as mahboob Mansion situate at Malakpet, Hyderabad with the adjoining structures and appurtenant land of about Ac. 42-00. The said property was made over to the Trust by means of a registered indenture executed by the donor Prince Muffakham Jah on 20/03/1972. It appears that even by that time the trustees were negotiating with the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for the sale of the said property and this fact is evident from the recitals in the Indenture. One of the trustees, Ataur Rehman who has filed the present writ petition was authorised by the other two trustees, namely, Prince Muffakham Jah and Sri Nadhirshah Mulla, to act, plead and represent for and on their behalf in all the proceedings relating to the disposal and acquisition of mahboob Mansion . This authorisation was given on 25-3-1972. An agreement was executed on 3/07/1972 by the Trustee, Sri Ataur Rehman acting on behalf of the Trust. The other party to the agreement is the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board represented by its Chairman.
( 4 ) IT is necessary to notice the salient terms of the agreement. It is recited in the agreement that at a meeting held on 14-2-1972, the Housing Board decided to acquire the appellant s land by mutual
