Back
1991 Supreme(AP) 40
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
RF (Rasat and Fharhat) Charitable Trust, Hyderabad represented by its Trustee, M.Ataur Rahman - Appellant
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (General) Land Acquisition, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02-07-91
The right to seek reference to the civil court for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is a personal right that can be waived by the landowner.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - REFERENCE TO CIVIL COURT - WAIVER OF RIGHT - AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANDOWNER AND HOUSING BOARD - VALIDITY - EFFECT ON RIGHT TO SEEK REFERENCE - DELAY IN ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public charitable trust, entered into an agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for the sale of its property. The agreement specified a total compensation amount, including solatium and interest, and stated that the appellant would not claim any additional sum or move for reference to the civil court. The Housing Board acquired the property under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in accordance with the agreement. The appellant received the compensation under protest and filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the civil court for enhancement of compensation. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant had waived its right to seek reference by entering into the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant had validly waived its right to seek reference to the civil court by entering into the agreement with the Housing Board. The court found that the agreement was not contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal, and that the appellant had not been coerced or misled into entering into it. The court also held that the delay in the acquisition proceedings did not entitle the appellant to claim additional compensation, as the agreement did not specify any time limit for the completion of the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had waived its right to seek reference to the civil court by entering into the agreement with the Housing Board? 2. Whether the delay in the acquisition proceedings entitled the appellant to claim additional compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to seek reference to the civil court for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is a personal right that can be waived by the landowner. An agreement between the landowner and the acquiring authority, which specifies the compensation amount and waives the right to seek reference, is valid and binding on the parties. 2. The mere fact that there is a delay in the acquisition proceedings does not entitle the landowner to claim additional compensation, unless the agreement between the parties specifies a time limit for the completion of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, subject to a direction that the Housing Board pay an additional compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellant for the delay in the acquisition proceedings.
( 1 ) WHETHER reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act has to be directed, on the facts ol the case, is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.
( 2 ) THE acquisition of the land and buildings 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 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 20th march 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 3rd July 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 la
