Failure to pay 80% compensation under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, necessitating a fresh award based on market value.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The land of the appellants/ writ petitioners herein, admeasuring Ac.8.37 cents in Sy.No.321/1 and 321/2 & 188 of Gummuluru Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, was initially sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites for the weaker sections of the society. It appears that, ultimately, only Ac.5.73 cents of land was taken over. The appellants had thereupon approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.4234 of 2013, contending that no award had been passed from 20.12.2003 when a notification had been issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as “the 1894 Act”) till the filing of the writ petition. The appellants contended that Section 11-A of the 1894 Act mandated that, where an award is not passed within three years from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, the entire proceedings would lapse. The appellants, on this basis, contended that the acquisition process had lapsed and the land should be given back to the appellants.

2. A Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, disposed of the writ petition, by an order, dated 25.02.2013. The Learned Single Judge noticed that Section 17 of the 1894 Act was invoked on the ground of urgency and that the mandate under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act would not apply, wherever Section 17 has been invoked. The Learned Single Judge took this view on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1993 S.C. 2517]. The Learned Single Judge also noticed that the said view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was doubted in a subsequent Judgment in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [ (2011) 9 SCC 354 ], and that the matter had been referred to a larger bench. However, the Learned Single Judge, on the ground that the ratio laid down in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) continues, till a contrary view is taken by a larger bench, had dismissed the writ petition.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

4. Sri K. Venkat Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the reference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. (2-supra), has been answered by a Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of U.P. & Another, [2022 SCC Online SC 1408]. He would submit that the Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken the view that the acquisition process would lapse, even when Section 17 of the 1894 Act is invoked, wherever 80 % of the compensation had not been paid. The learned counsel would contend that since the appellants were not paid 80 % of the compensation, as required under Section 17 of the 1894 Act, the proceedings would have to be treated as lapsed.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the land in question has already been converted into house sites and various persons are in occupation and have constructed structures in the lands. In view of these developments, the learned counsel would contend that the appellants would have to be compensated by fixing compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (here-in-after referred to as “the 2013 Act”) by fixing a fresh date that is to be taken as the date for fixation of compensation.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that compensation of 80 % had been offered to the appellants at the time of issuance of notification of Section 17 of the 1894 Act and the appellants had refused to receive the same. He relies upon the pleadings set out in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition before the Learned Single Judge for this purpose. The learned Assistant Governme