Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 818
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dilip B. Bhosale, S.V. Bhatt, JJ.
Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Somasilar Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, Kadapa District - Appellant
Versus
Narayana Nellore Subbnarayudu & Others - Respondents
LAAS. MP. Nos. 827, 1011 of 2015 and LAAS No. 136 of 2009 & W.P. M.P. Nos. 10813 of 2011, 43075 of 2015 and W.P. No. 27925 of 2010
Decided on : 16-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Krishna Prakash, G.P.
For the Respondents:G.P., D.V. Sitaram Murthy, E. Manohar, Advocate.
Headnote:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside an award granted by a reference court for compensation for structures that were allegedly acquired by the government but did not exist on the date of acquisition. The court found that the reference court had framed an illegal and presumptuous point for consideration, which resulted in an exorbitant and excessive compensation award. The court also permitted the appellant to raise additional grounds against the award to prevent abuse of process and collusion between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, issued a Nil Award dated 09.12.1999, rejecting the claim for compensation for structures in Survey Nos. 127/A and 128/2 of Madhavaram Village, Vontimitta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The claimants filed W.P. No. 27925 of 2010, alleging that compensation was paid for non-existing structures and that the determination of compensation was a scam. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to inspect the land and determine the compensation payable to the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No. 18/86, dated 18-9-1986, for structures in Reach No. 6 covering 34 structures in S. No. 127/A 6 structures in S. No. 128/2, 9 structures in S. No. 239/2 and 2 structures in S. No. 239.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference court had framed an illegal and presumptuous point for consideration, which resulted in an exorbitant and excessive compensation award. The court also found that there was collusion between the claimants and the departments involved in the acquisition process.
Issues: 1. Whether the issue/point framed for consideration in LAOP No. 1013 of 2001 was correct, valid and legal in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the structures for which compensation is claimed in LAOP No. 1013 of 2001 were in existence by the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification dated 20.02.1981 or any date on which the claimants claim that a notification was issued? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for payment of compensation for acquisition of any of the structures in Survey Nos. 127/A and 128/2, if so, what is the compensation payable to claimants? 4. Whether the prayer in W.P. No. 27925 of 2010 can be examined, and if so to what extent?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reference court had failed to discharge its duty of evaluating the objections and determining whether the subject structures were in existence in Survey Nos. 127/A and 128/2 by the date of notification of claimants' choice. The court also held that the reference court had no power to determine and award whimsical amounts as compensation and that the determination of compensation must be based on legal and relevant evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award granted by the reference court and remanded the matter back to the reference court for disposal in accordance with law. The court also directed the reference court to complete the enquiry and dispose of the LAOP within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
S.V. Bhatt, J.
Heard Mr. Krishna Prakash Patnaikuni, learned Government Pleader for the appellant in LAAS No. 136 of 2009 and respondents 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 27925 of 2010, Mr. D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned senior counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 27925 of 2010 and Mr. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel for respondents/claimants in LAAS No. 136 of 2009 and respondents 5 and 6 in W.P. No. 27925 of 2010.
2. LAAS No. 136 of 2009 is filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajmapet against the Award dated 27.11.2008 in LAOP No. 1013 of 2001 in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Kadapa from Land Acquisition Officer/appellant.
3. The claimants/respondents filed E.P. No. 12 of 2009 in LAOP No. 1013 of 2001 in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Kadapa to recover compensation determined as on 09.03.2009 at Rs. 29,03,50,903/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Crores, Three Lakh's, Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred and Three only).
4. While matters stood thus and in anticipation of execution of Award in LAOP No. 1013 of 2001, one R. Thippa Reddy, a practising Advocate from Kadapa filed in public interest W.P. No. 27925 of 2010 for Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in desisting the fraudulent acts of claimants/respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition from realising fraudulent compensation for 89 alleged structures in Survey Nos. 127/A and 128/2 of Madhavaram Village, Vontimitta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and in trying to withdraw compensation, as illegal, arbitrary and detrimental to the interest of the State Exchequer. The writ petitioner complains that the claim for compensation or withdrawal of compensation is in derogation of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short' the Act'). The petitioner further prays for a direction to order enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Enquiries Act, 1983 and by a suitable order prohibit financial scam from being perpetuated by respondents 5 and 6.
5. The subject matter in LAAS No. 136 of 2009 and the complaint against withdrawal of compensation made in W.P. No. 27925 of 2010 admittedly relate to Survey No. 127/A of an extent of Ac.2-54 cents and Survey No. 128/2 of an extent of Ac.2-36 cents and alleged structures (89) therein (for short 'the subject structures').
6. The learned counsel appearing for all the parties have made elaborate submissions in LAAS No. 136 of 2009 and W.P. No. 27925 of 2010. The issues i.e., either determination of compensation or alleged financial scam relate to one and the same subject matter. We propose to dispose of the LAAS, W.P., and the pending miscellaneous petitions referred above by this common judgment.
LAAS No. 136 of 2009:
7. On 09.12.1999, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, through Award No. 47/99-2000 rejected the claim of claimants for payment of any compensation for acquisition of alleged (89) subject structures. The relevant portion of the Award reads as follows:
"The issue regarding compensation in respect of the 89 (eighty nine) structures of the Writ Petitioners in Contempt case No. 1025 of 99, evidence was produced particularly in the form or House Tax Receipts and demand notices which relates to the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985- 86 and 1986-87 only in respect of 5 structures, which were subsequent to the Notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act, (i.e.) 1981. It reveals that the Writ Petitioners have failed to produce evidence, in support of the existence of the structures as on date of Notification or earlier to the Notification i.e. in 1981. Hence, it is believed that the structures were raised subsequent to the Notification. The existence of structures is not proved. Hence the claim of the following 5 writ petitioners who filed the documentary evidence of 1981 onwards is hereby rejected.
1. Amanchela Subbanna
2. Putta Eswaraiah
3. Bi
