Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kandaleru Jalasayam Punaravasa Kendra ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 January, 2024
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
::1::
[ 2605 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 28346 OF 2017
Between:
1. Kandaleru Jalasayam Punaravasa Kendra Committee, Office at
Gundavolu Village. Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Rep
by its President. Bommireddy Ravindra Reddy, S/o.Janardhan
Reddy. Aged about 43 years, R/o Gundavolu Village, Rapur
Mandal, SPSR Nellore District
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi. Amaravathi.
Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
3. The Special Collector, (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga
Project, Mulapet. Nellore. SPSR Nellore District.
4. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga
Project, Rapur at Nellore, Mulapet. Nellore, SPSR Nellore
District
...RESPONDENTS
::2::
This Court made the following
ORDER:
- The petitioner, who is the Kandaleru Jalasayam Punaravasa Kendra Committee, Rep. by its President of Gundavolu Village in Nellore Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, filed the instant writ petition, seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in not passing necessary orders in terms of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the L.A. Act') on the applications dated 08.07.2017 filed by them as arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the L.A. Act and for a consequential direction to 4th respondent to consider their applications and pass orders thereon.
2. The petitioner's case, succinctly, is thus:
(a) For foreshore submersion of Kandaleru Reservoir under Telugu Ganga Project, all the lands, residential houses and other structures belonging to the residents of Gundavolu Village including the members of the Petitioner Society were acquired by the Government pursuant to the draft notification No.46/TGP/07 dated ::3::
01.05.2007 of the L.A. Act . Award No.2/2009 was passed on 18.05.2009 in respect of Gundavolu Villagers and compensation was received by the villagers under protest.
(b) At the instance of some of the villagers of Gundavolu, their claims were referred u/s 18 of the L.A.Act. In L.A.O.P.No.1/2011, the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore allowed their claims vide award dated 22.09.2014 and enhanced the compensation as mentioned in the award.
(c) Aggrieved, the Government of A.P. filed appeal in L.A.A.S.No.65/2015 on the file of the common High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad, which is pending. In L.A.A.S.M.P.No.403/2015, an interim order came to be passed as follows:
"This application is filed seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 passed in L.A.O.P.No.1/2011 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District including execution proceedings in E.P. No.22 of 2015.
The learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that there are similar matters wherein this Court granted interim stay.
::4::
Considering the above submission we are inclined to make the following order:
"There shall be interim stay as prayed for on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the enhanced compensation together with statutory benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and without any deduction towards income tax."
(d) In compliance thereof, the State deposited the amount and the concerned claimants have withdrawn the said amount.
(e) While so, some other batch of Gundavolu Villagers have also filed reference petition u/s 18 of the L.A. Act and concerned L.A.O.P.No.8/2015 is pending on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. In view of the developments in other L.A.O.P.No.1/2011, the claim petitioners have filed I.A.No.405/2016 in L.A.O.P.No.8/2015 under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pay enhanced market rate at 75% per square meter over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said petition was allowed on 24.04.2017 and the Government did not prefer any appeal and thereby said order attained finality. It is learnt by present ::5::
petitioner that the claim petitioners in I.A.No.405/2016 were taking steps to realize the benefit of the orders dated 24.04.2017 in I.A.No.405/2016.
(f) The members of the present Petitioner Society are also equally placed as that of the claimants in LA.O.P. No.1/2011 and L.A.O.P.No.8/2015 since their properties were also acquired under the same notification. Hence, all the members of the Petitioner Society filed individual applications dated 08.07.2017 to 4th respondent with a request to re-determine the compensation u/s 28-A of the L.A. Act in respect of the properties acquired from them and confer the statutory benefit which they are entitled to in view of the order in I.A.No.405/2016 in L.A.O.P.No.8/2015. The copies of the petition were also sent to respondents 2 and 3. However, the respondents 2 and 4 have not passed any order so far on their applications.
Hence the writ petition.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition. In the counter most of the facts of the writ petition are admitted. The writ ::6::
petition is however opposed on the main contention that the members of the petitioner society have not filed any reference under Section 18 of the L.A Act within a period of three months. It is further contended that even though the petitioners are eligible for payment of compensation U/s 28-A of the L.A Act, however their claim for payment of enhanced compensation basing on the interim orders of Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad cannot be considered and so their applications U/s 28-A were rejected and the individuals were informed accordingly through an endorsement by RPAD vide RCC 79/2017, dated 23.08.2017.
4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Chetluru Srinivas and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondents.
5. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of interim order in L.A.A.S.M.P.No.403 of 2015 in L.A.A.S No.65/2015 and also the interim order in I.A No.405/2016 ::7::
in L.A.O.P No.8/2015 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, the members of petitioner committee are entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of Section 28-A of the L.A Act as granted in those interim orders.
The argument of learned Government Pleader is that the members of the petitioner committee cannot take advantage of the order in IA No.405/2016 in LAOP No.8/2015. The reason being LAOP No.8/2015 is still pending and no final award has been passed by the VII Addl. District Judge, Gudur. Section 28-A applies only when an award has been passed by the concerned reference Court. Therefore, the order in interlocutory petition cannot be made basis for claiming enhanced compensation. Learned Government Pleader thus argued that the 4th respondent rightly rejected the applications of the members of the petitioner committee on the ground that compensation cannot be re-determined basing on the interim orders of the Court.
6. The point for consideration is whether the members of the petitioner committee based their claim on the strength of the interim ::8::
order in I.A No.405/2016 in L.A.O.P. No.8/2015 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur and if so, whether such claim is maintainable U/s 28-A of the LA Act ?
7. POINT: I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. For better appreciation of the respective contentions, it is germane to refer to Section 28-A of the LA Act which reads thus:
"28.A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court:- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."
8. A perusal of the opening words of Section 28-A i.e., "where, in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount ::9::
of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector U/s 11" gives an understanding that the word 'award' referred supra means a final award in terms of Section 26 of the LA Act. Section 26 lays down that every award under this Part (Part-III) shall be in writing signed by the Judge and shall specify the amount awarded under different clauses of Section 23(1) and such award passed by the Court shall be deemed to be decree within the meaning of Section 2 of C.P.C. Therefore, the word 'award' used in Section 28-A can be taken as final award passed by the reference Court but not an interlocutory order as rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader. That being so, a petition U/s 28-A can be filed by the person interested only when a final award is passed by the reference Court wherein it allowed to the applicant an amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector U/s 11. It goes without saying that a petition U/s 28-A cannot be filed on the basis of an interlocutory order.
9. Be that as it may, in the instant case the members of the petitioner committee based their claim on the strength of the interim ::10::
order in I.A No.405/2016 in L.A.O.P No.8/2015. The pleadings in para-8 of the writ petition clarifies this aspect. Para-8 reads thus:
"8. I respectfully submit that in view of the rights of the members of the society, in pursuance of the orders dated 24.04.2017, passed in I.A.No.405 of 2016 in LAOP 8 of 2015, all the members of the petitioner society individually sent applications dated 8.7.2017 to the 4th Respondent / Land acquisition Officer along with the covering letter dated 14.7.2017 through their advocate Sri N. Vengala Reddy which was sent by registered post ACK due on 15.07.2017 to the respondent with the following prayer:
"Therefore it is prayed that the Hon'ble Spl. Deputy Collector, (LA), T.G.P. Rapur, at Nellore, be pleased to re-determination of amount of the compensation for structures of this petitioners U/s 28 A of L.A. Act basing on the order and decree dated 24.4.2017, passed in I.A.No.405 of 2016 in LAOP No.8 of 2015 and same be paid to the petitioner with all statutory benefits without delay after enqiry through his advocate Sri N. Vengal Reddy, B.A. BL. In the interest of justice."
10. Then a perusal of endorsement dated 23.08.2017 a copy of which is filed along with the counter shows that the 4th respondent rejected the applications filed by the members of the petitioner committee mainly on the ground that the claim for enhancement of compensation basing on the interim orders of the Hon'ble Court cannot be considered. The aforesaid rejection, in my considered view is perfectly legal and valid ::11::
in view of the above observation. Running the risk of repetition it is reiterated that members of the petitioner committee cannot file petition U/s 28-A on the strength of interlocutory order in I.A No.405/2016 in L.A.O.P No.8/2015. However, they can file such an application within the stipulated period of limitation after final award is passed in L.A.O.P No.8/2015.
11. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 08.01.2024 krk ::12::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO W.P.No. 28346 of 2017 08th January, 2024 krk