M V Subbaiah vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 426 AP

                                      1




           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                      WRIT PETITION No.3407 of 2019
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents.

The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the

respondents in not disposing of the petitioners applications dated

21.06.2010 filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( for

short 'the Act') pending before the respondent No.3 seeking re-

determination of the compensation in respect of the petitioners' structures

pursuant to the Lok Adalat Award No.109/2010 dated 27.03.2010 as illegal,

arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India

and also contrary to Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on various

grounds.

The brief averments as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the

writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners are owners of land and structures in different survey

numbers of Rangampalli village, Kadapa District. In the year 1994, the

respondent No.3 issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act dated 05.03.1994 as the petitioners' structures were

submersible under the back water of Somasila Project. In view of the same,

the respondent No.3 passed an Award No.8/1993-1994 dated 31.03.1994

fixing the compensation to the structures and in the said Award, the

petitioners were shown as claimants. As the respondent No.3 did not fix the

market value of the structures, they intended to seek reference under

Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation, but could not

seek reference. However, remaining claimants in respect of the above said

Award sought for reference and the same was considered in

L.A.O.P.No.1227 of 2001 which has been referred to Lok Adalat at Kadapa.

The Lok Adalat was pleased to pass an Award on 27.03.2010 enhancing

the market value of the structures. The said Award was implemented by the

respondents.

As the petitioners could not seek reference under Section 18 of the

Act, they filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act on 21.06.2010

before the 3rd respondent for re-determination of the compensation in

respect of the petitioners structures acquired in view of the Award passed

by the Lok Adalat dated 27.03.2010. The said applications were

acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 23.06.2010. Though the petitioners

have been making requests repeatedly to the 3rd respondent to dispose of

their applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act interms of the Lok

Adalat Award dated 27.03.2010, no action has been taken so far. Hence

the present writ petition.

Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the

petitioners while contending inter alia that the petitioners are entitled for re-

determination of compensation in respect of the structures of the petitioners

acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 05.03.1994 submits that the

action of the 3rd respondent in not considering and disposing of the

applications under Section 28-A dated 21.06.2010 for re-determination of

compensation, despite constant persuasion by the petitioners is not just or

tenable. He submits that as the applications under Section 28-A seeking

re-determination of compensation was filed within three(3) months from the

date of passing of Award by the Lok Adalat, the same has to be considered

by the 3rd respondent. While placing reliance on the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Others v. Chitrasen Bhoi1

and Komaramjeri Pedamunuswamy and Others v. Government of A.P.2

of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the learned counsel

contends that in view of the legal position set out in the said judgments, the

action of the 3rd respondent in not taking up the applications of the

petitioners referred to above is not tenable or justified. The learned counsel

further submits that due to the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, the

petitioners are subjected to serious prejudice and irreparable loss.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on

the other hand submits that the contentions raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioners are not sustainable. He further contends that the Award

was passed in the year 1994 and seeking re-determination of compensation

after lapse of considerable time of more than 16 years is not just and

therefore the 3rd respondent cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, he

submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, on the ground of

latches.

The contentions of the learned counsel have been examined in the

light of the decisions referred to above. A learned Single Judge of the

erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in

Komaramjeri Pedamunuswamy's case referred 2nd supra held that legal

right of petitioner/claimant to claim benefit under Section 28-A of the Act

cannot be defeated on the ground that Court made such Award only on the

strength of compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties before

the Lok Adalat. The learned Single Judge while holding that when the

parties are covered by the same Notification, though no application was

(2009)17 SCC 74

2005(2) ALD 212

made by them under Section 18 of the Act, if the other conditions are

satisfied, the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to re-determine the amount

of compensation on the basis of Award of the Court. The learned Judge

has categorically held that though the Award was passed on the

compromise or settlement before the Lok Adalat, it would make no

difference and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine the

compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned

Single Judge in the said judgment, while referring to the expression of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari3 wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the object underlying the enactment

of Section 28-A of the Act to remove inequality in payment of compensation

for same or similar quality of land arising on account of inarticulate and poor

people not being able to take advantage of right reference to the Civil Court

under Section 18 of the Act. Further the learned Judge, referred to the

various provisions of Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and arrived at the

conclusions as mentioned supra.

The learned Judge while referring to the undisputed facts which are

similar in the present writ petition that the lands are covered by the same

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to which the Award relates and it

is also not in controversy that the application under Section 28 of the Act

was filed in time, issued a positive direction to the Land Acquisition Officer

to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. The

relevant portion of the said judgment may be extracted for ready reference:

......."In the decision referred in Board of Trustees of the Port of Visakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer, Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

AIR (1995) SC 2259

Visakhapatnam and Anr. (supra), while dealing with Sections 19(5), 21 and 22 of the said Act and the validity of the award and award of Lok Adalat it was held that the same be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court passed on compromise and the same is final and no Appeal lies and such an award is not subject to judicial review and the Lok Adalat is vested with jurisdiction to receive applications direct and decide the dispute between the parties on consent or compromise. As already referred to supra, there is no dispute or controversy between the parties that all other conditions had been satisfied except that the 39th petitioner had not joined the presentation of the application. The only objection on which the impugned order was made is to the effect that unless some evidence is adduced and the matter is adjudicated on the reference made under Section 18 of the Act by a competent Court, on the mere fact that the parties had settled the matter in Lok Adalat, the benefits under Section 28-A of the Act cannot be claimed. On a careful reading of the relevant provisions of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 and also Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot defeat the legal right of the petitioners to claim benefit under Section 28-A of the Act by resorting to the method of arriving at a settlement or compromise before the Lok Adalat on the strength of which the decrees had been passed. This construction or interpretation of the provisions of the Act and also the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 would be definitely contrary to the very object with which Section 28-A of the Act had been introduced. When the parties are covered by the same notification and though they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, if the other conditions are satisfied the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to re-determine the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The mere fact that a Court had made such award only on the strength of the compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat, in the considered view of this Court, would not alter the situation in any way. As already referred to supra, interpreting the provisions specified supra otherwise, would defeat

the very object and intendment with which Section 28-A of the Act had been introduced....."

In the present case, as seen from the endorsement of the

respondent No.3 dated 23.06.2010, on the petitioners' applications, there

cannot be any dispute that the application under Section 28-A of the Act

was submitted within a period of three months.

In Chitrasen Bhoi's case referred to 1st supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Hon'ble Division

Bench of High Court of Orissa allowing the writ petition filed by the claimant

seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the

application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said

case, pursuant to Section 4(1), notification dated 01.01.1973 under the

Land Acquisition Act, an Award was made on 31.07.1975. Aggrieved by

the same, some of the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the

said Act and the same was decided vide Award dated 05.01.1995.

However, one of the claimant who have not sought reference, filed an

application under Section 28-A of the Act on 21.03.1995 claiming the same

market value for his land. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the said

application against which the matter was carried by way of a writ petition to

the High Court of Orissa. The Writ Petition was allowed and the State of

Orissa carried the matter by way of an appeal and the same was dismissed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said matter also like in the present

case, the claimant/respondent has not filed any application seeking

reference under Section 18 of the Act, but an application under Section 28-

A of the Act was filed seeking re-determination of the compensation. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the various decisions on the

subject reiterated the view that Section 28-A of the Act seeks to confer the

benefit of enhanced compensation on those owners who did not seek

reference under Section 18 of the Act and that under the said provisions,

they are entitled for enhanced compensation decreed by the reference

Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also dealt with the aspect of limitation

with reference to the earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it

was held that the limitation of three months for making application for re-

determination of compensation is to be computed from the date of first

Award of the reference Court.

Thus, in view of the legal position referred to above, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the action of the respondent No.3 in not

entertaining and disposing of the applications of the petitioners dated

21.06.2010 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act made within

three months from the date of Award passed on 27.03.2010 seeking re-

determination of compensation in respect of the structures acquired from

them is not just or tenable. The contention advanced by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader with regard to the latches under the

aforementioned circumstances is unsustainable and is accordingly rejected.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the

respondent No.3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners'

applications dated 21.06.2010 for re-determination of compensation under

Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity

to the petitioners in view of the above referred judgments, within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Date: 29.01.2021.

BLV

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No. 3407 of 2019 Date: 29.01.2021

BLV