Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Singana Subba Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Prl. Secy., Irrigation Dept., State of A.P. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 27325 and 11881 of 2018
Decided On : 18-01-2022
For the Petitioner: Ch. C. Krishna Reddy.
For the Respondent: GP For IRRI And CAD AP.
Point of Law : Since the petitioners herein/land owners agreed to receive the same, while agreeing not to make any claim either in any Court of law or before any authority, such agreement is binding on these petitioners.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950– Article 226 - Land Acquisition Act – Section 4(1),23 and 11 – Land – Compensation - W.P. is taken as leading case - Petitioners in W.P. were owners of different extents of land and structures thereon, which was submerged under backwaters of Project along with other structures and land in said village - Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in District Gazette - After following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act was passed by the third respondent - Estimates were arrived by Engineering Department for structures - Award was passed as per the said S.S.R Rates and compensation was paid to the petitioners- Whether a direction as claimed by petitioners be issued by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
On consideration of facts and circumstances, respondents could establish that Award are consent awards and that the compensation for structures was assessed based on Standard Schedule Rates, for enhancement of 25% over it, though notification was published under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act - Since the petitioners herein/land owners agreed to receive same, while agreeing not to make any claim either in any Court of law or before any authority, such agreement is binding on these petitioners, thereby, petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates - Consequently, it is difficult to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed - In view of court foregoing discussion, court find that these petitioners failed to establish that, Award are passed under Section 11(1) but not under Section 11(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not deny execution of agreement in Form-V prescribed under the Rules - Petitioners not even denied consent Award passed by the third respondent, which are filed along with the writ petitions, no merit lies in the contentions of these petitioners.
Result: writ petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
1. W.P.No.27325 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief :
“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.1/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R.) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act.”
2. W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief :
“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act.”
3. Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, I find it expedient to decide both the matters by common order.
4. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is taken as leading case. The petitioners in W.P.No.11881 of 2018 were the owners of different extents of land and structures thereon in Reach No.II, Korivivandlapalli Village, Hamlet of Varikunta, Atloor Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, which was submerged under the backwaters of Somasila Project along with other structures and land in the said village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in District Gazette No.33 dated 01.10.2005. After following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 was passed by the third respondent. Estimates were arrived by the Engineering Department for the structures following the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) Rates of the year 2002-03. Award was passed as per the said 2002-03 year S.S.R Rates and compensation was paid to the petitioners.
5. Since the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette No.33 dated 01.10.2005, the S.S.R Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 has to be adopted for the preparation of estimates and pass award for payment of compensation. No such procedure was followed in passing the Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 and payment of compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation at the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated 01.10.2005. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.484 Irrigation & C.A.D (Projects Wing/T.G.P.II/A.2) Department dated 26.06.2003 clearly stated that the valuation of the structures should be done as per current S.S.R Rates. According to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation has to be paid on the basis of the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) on the date of Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act Notification dated 01.10.2005. Despite the representation dated 19.03.2018 submitted by the petitioners to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating all the facts and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not consider the same. The action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 01.10.2005 and such action is illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the pe
