Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
C.R.P. Nos.1144 and 2092 of 2000
Decided on 1-12-2005.
Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Public Works Dept. (Project Wing) and others
v.
Boyapati Sleeva Reddy and others
Advocate Appeared
Govt . Pleader for Appeals, for the Appellants.
Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents.
Held : Admittedly, the suits are not filed questioning the acquisition proceedings, on making award, for apportionment of the compensation between the plaintiffs and any other person interested. Pleadings and the evidence let in by the parties clearly indicate that provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the defendants and they in utter disregard to the provisions of the Act deprived the plaintiffs of their property, by taking possession on issuing notification and declaration under the Act without payment of compensation for the lands acquired and passing of award.
When the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the property no award as such is passed in spite of plaintiffs obtaining a rule form this court to pass such an award the provisions of Act have not been complied with, namely, passing an award and dertmination of compensation. Had been the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation by passing award, the remedy of the plaintiff is to seek reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, for the land which they have been deprived of by invoking the provisions of the Act. Once the Land Acquisition Officer failed to pass award, there is no other remedy for the plaintiff/s except to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as they were unlawfully deprived of their property. More so, Sec.52 also recognizes the right of the land owner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by issuing one month prior notice of intended action. In view of the same, it is difficult to accede to the submission of the learned Government pleader that Civil Court will not have Jurisdiction to entertain the suits and it is accordingly rejected.
Even assuming the defendants plea is accepted that plaintiffs were assigned alternate land, when admittedly in 1970, they have not re-delivered possession of the property which was not required for the purpose for which it was taken before 1998. Only after writ petitions are disposed of, there was an offer to re-deliver the property which was not utilized after retaining the portion of the land where office buildings have come up, and in 1998 under a panchanama lands were delivered. If that be the case, there was no proposal for the plaintiff/s to accept the alternate land in the year 1970 as pleaded by the defendants nor there is any possibility their accepting said proposal. Further when alternate land was assigned in lieu of compensation, necessity of re-delivery of the property, which was not required for the purpose, which it was acquired, will not arise and the same had not been properly explained. When admittedly more extent of land was acquired under notification, which was in possession of the defendants, no prudent person will accept lesser area towards compensation. In the absence of any evidence let in by the defendants that alternate land was assigned in favour of the plaintiff/s or predecessors-in-title, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that alternate land was given to the plaintiff/s in lieu of compensation and suits, as such filed claming compensation/damages are not maintainable, cannot be accepted and it is accordingly rejected.
The facts in these two appeals are substantially similar and the question that falls for consideration is also common. Therefore these two appeals are clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh and its officers who are defendants in the suits O.S. Nos.51/1994 and 69/93, filed these appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgments and decrees dt. 29-1 0-1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda in decreeing the suits of the plaintiff/s filed for recovery of compensation for the land taken by the defendants with interest.
3. The relevant facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of these appeals lie in a narrow compass.
4. The first defendant issued Notification on 21-6-1969 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the act") proposing to acquire Ac.8-38 guntas in S.Nos.820, 821,825 and471 for the purpose of construction of Camp division of Nagarjuna Sagar canals at Mattampalli village. Out of it the father of the plaintiff in OS No.51/94 owns Ac.4-13 guntas. By invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with enabling the Land Acquisition Officer to take possession of the acquired property and accordingly on issuance of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and got published the same in the District Gezette on 23-8-1996 possession was taken. Thereafter award enquiry was commenced under Section 9 of the Act on 4-2-1970 by the third defendant. The father of the plaintiff in O.S. No.51/94 appeared and requested to allot land in lieu of compensation. Since neither the alternate land was given nor compensation was paid, he requested the authorities to return his land. In the meantime when the purpose of acquisition is over Government vacated certain land. The father of the plaintiff in O.S. No.51/94 filed W.P No.7820/86 for issuing appropriate direction to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing an award, which was disposed of by order, Ex.A-1, by this Court on 2-6-1987, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to finalize the award proceedings within two months from the date of the order. The fact remains that no such award was passed, but the authorities requested the father of the plaintiff to take back the land instead of compensation, for which he gave consent, Thereafter on the directions of the second respondent. Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally returned AC.2-28 guntas of land out of AcA-13 guntas by duly recording the proceedings under a cover of panchanama Ex-A-2 dt. 3-5-1988. Similarly, through the very same notification, an extent of AC.1-23 guntas in S.No.825 belonging to the first plaintiff and AC.2-13 guntas in S.No. 821 belonging to the second plaintiff in OS No.69/93 was proposed to acquire for the same purpose as mentioned supra. They also requested to allot alternate land in lieu of compensation. As their efforts either to get alternate land or to receive compensation failed they filed W.P. No. 13572/87 before this Court, which was disposed of by its order dt. 6-12-1988. EX.A-3 directing the respondents there in to return the acquired land to the plaintiff after initiating the withdrawal proceedings under Section 48 of the Act within 8 weeks from the date of order, On failing to implement the said order by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed CC No.598/89. On filing said contempt case, the Mandal Revenue officer Mattampalli returned Ac.O-20 guntas in S.No.821/B and AC.O-22 guntas in S.No.821/C to plaintiff NO.1 by keeping balance extent of Ac.1-11 guntas, and Ac.O-35 guntas in S.No.825/D and AC.0-09 guntas in S, No.825/F to plaintiff No.2 by keeping the balance extent of AC.0-19 with them and under a cover of Panch an am a dt. 17-7-1992, EX.A-2. In the site retained by the defendants, MDO, MRO and other offices have already been constructed. In view of the same, they filed the suits seeking compensation/damages @ Rs
SupremeToday
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
