Bodduboina Pedda Gopal vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4378 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

              WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 2020
                            AND
       WRIT PETITION Nos.12287, 12196 & 12199 OF 2021

#
W.P.No.4286 OF 2020 & 03 other writ petitions

Bodduboina Pedda Gopal,
R/o Patimeedipalli Village,
Atluru Mandal,
Kadapa District & 104 others                     ..... Petitioners

Vs.

$
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Land Acquisition
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi
Guntur District                                 ..Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy

^ Counsel for the respondent :

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 28.10.2021

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

+ WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 2020 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.12287, 12196 & 12199 OF 2021

% Dated 28.10.2021

# W.P.No.4286 OF 2020 & 03 other writ petitions

Bodduboina Pedda Gopal, R/o Patimeedipalli Village, Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District & 104 others ..... Petitioners

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Land Acquisition Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur District ..Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy

^ Counsel for the respondent :

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2005 Law Suit (AP) 167

2. W.P.No.14864 of 2007 dated 20.09.2007

3. 2012 Law Suit (SC) 743

4. 2001 Law Suit (SC) 1251

5. (1978) 1 SCC 68

6. (2003) 3 SCC 472

7. W.P.No.14864 of 2007 dated 20.09.2007

8. W.P.No.4128 of 2007 & batch dated 04.08.2008

9. 2021 SCC online Sc 334

10. Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021

11. AIR 1974 SC 130

12. AIR 1972 Ker 103, 107 para 5

13. (2010) 1 SCC 512

14. (1979) 4 SCC 176

15. (1985) 3 SCC 737 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 2020 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.12287, 12196 & 12199 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

All these four writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India by different petitioners, claiming identical relief,

as such, I find it expedient to decide all the four writ petitions by

common order, since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one

and the same. W.P.No.4286 of 2020 is taken as leading case.

W.P.No.4286 of 2020

The relief claimed in W.P.No.4286 of 2020 is as follows:

"To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners in respect of their acquired structures covered under Award No.4/97 which has been finally determined in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002 as confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006 inspite of oral and written representations dated 14.03.2012, 20.10.2015, 29.06.2017 and 05.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners pursuant to the order and decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002 as confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006 in pursuance of the written representations dated 14.03.2012, 20.10.2015, 29.06.2017 and 05.11.2019 made by the petitioners."

The petitioners are the permanent residents of Patimeedipalli

Village, Atlur Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioners possessed

land in the village and the structures thereon were sought for

acquisition for Somasila Project under Notification dated 01.03.1995

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, Award

No.4 of 1997 was passed on 24.11.1997, awarding compensation for MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

the structures. The petitioners received compensation amount for

the structures under protest, as the compensation awarded by the

Land Acquisition Officer for the structures was not commensurate

with the value. Thereupon, they sought reference under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation awarded,

vide Award No.4 of 1997.

In pursuance of the request made by the petitioners, a

reference was made to the District Judge, Kadapa, the same was

registered as L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 and it was disposed of by the

District Judge, Kadapa, enhancing compensation for the structures

100% over and above the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition

Officer, granting statutory benefits vide decree and order dated

26.02.2002.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge,

Kadapa in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001, the third respondent preferred

A.S.No.513 of 2004 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad and the same was allowed in part, modifying the

direction in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 reducing the enhanced

compensation from 100% to 80% over and above the market value

fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed the same in all

other respects i.e. for payment of statutory benefits.

The third respondent paid compensation amount pursuant to

the decree passed by the High Court in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated

09.03.2006 in part, but did not choose to pay additional

compensation, interest @ 9% on additional market value and 15% of

solatium on the awarded amount as per the order and decree passed

in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001. The petitioners requested to pay the MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

amount, but the authorities have been postponing the same on one

pretext or the other.

The third respondent made the petitioners believe that the

compensation would be paid, but they did not pay the same till

2012. The third respondent did not pay compensation despite

several oral representations made by the petitioners and the

petitioners made written representation dated 14.03.2012 requesting

for payment of compensation and the same was acknowledged.

Inspite of that, the third respondent did not take any steps for

payment of compensation and as such, the petitioners made another

representations dated 20.10.2015 and 29.06.2017, but no action has

been taken and again the petitioners were constrained to make

representation dated 05.11.2019 to the third respondent, stating

paid compensation in respect of other claimants pursuant to the

orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.4132 of 2007 & batch

dated 20.04.2007 covered by L.A.O.P.No.541 of 2001 dated

09.04.2002, subsequent to orders passed in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001,

but the third respondent did not pay the compensation to the

petitioners till today, thereby, the respondents discriminated these

petitioners in -payment of compensation and other benefits.

As the respondents did not pay compensation, the petitioners

approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, while contending that the writ petition is

maintainable, though decree can executed in view of the judgment of

the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bhamidipati

Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Reservoir Project1, where the Court held that, availability of such

alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a bar in

entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances and

also held that, in cases arising out of the Act where the amount of

compensation, finally determined has not been paid, a person must

first resort to the alternate efficacious remedy of taking out execution

and despite taking out execution proceedings, if there is any delay

caused by authorities, resort can be had by filing of a writ petition in

this Court and, this Court, while exercising its discretionary

jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate

deposit of the amount of compensation by the State Government or

the authorities on whose behalf the land has been acquired. In the

instant case, the execution petitions could not be filed because the

third respondent had paid part of the compensation and caused

delay in payment of balance compensation. Though the petitioners

made several representations, no purpose is served. Hence, the writ

petition is maintainable and requested to issue a direction as stated

above.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit, denying material

allegations, inter alia, explained the circumstances under which the

land was acquired and Award was passed, making reference to the

District Judge, Kadapa under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

vide L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001, its disposal and passing a decretal

order by the learned District Judge, Kadapa, preferring an appeal

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in

A.S.No.513 of 2004 and enhancement of compensation. Finally,

submitted that the then Special Deputy Collector submitted decretal

1 2005 Law Suit (AP) 167 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

proposals for payment of decretal charges on the difference amount

between Court and Land Acquisition Officer i.e. total differential

interest amount of Rs.76,27,773/- (including income tax @

Rs.1,14,86/- and Rs.75,13,387/- towards deduction of income tax

and decretal charges respectively) to claimants are as follows:

No of Rate Rate Differ 12% 30% Total 9 15 % Total Total Income Net claim fixed fixed ence Addl. solatium 5+6) (interest interes Intere payabl tax payabl ants by by (2-3) Market on col.4 24.11.96 t st e deduct e (11-

        the     LAO                    value                           to          24.11.                        ion        12)
        court                          on                              31.08.06    96 to                         above
                                       Col.4                           For         31.08.                        one
                                                                       2832        06 for                        lakh @
                                                                       days        2832                          10%
                                                                                   days
  1       2       3        4             5         6             7        8           9       10        11         12         13
102     5958    3310     2648          864      7944           4307    2383        30821     3320     7627       114        7513
        565     315      250           565      73             283     43          28        471      773        386        387

The proposal was submitted by the Special Collector (L.A),

G.N.S.S., Kadapa vide office Ref.No.B/53/2001 dated 04.09.2006

and the Special Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S., Kadapa sanctioned LOC

and issued proceedings vide reference No.A1/574/2006 dated

08.09.2006. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector deposited

decretal amount of Rs.75,13,387/-.

It is specifically contended that, the Advocate for petitioners

informed through his letter dated 02.09.2006 that claimants are

willing to receive compensation amount and also informed that they

will not go to the Court or Lok Adalat further, in L.A.O.P.No.437 of

2001 and A.S.No.513 of 2004. Finally, it is admitted about the order

passed by the District Judge, Kadapa in reference under Section 18

and also extracted operative portion of the orders passed in

A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006. But, it is unnecessary for the

purpose of deciding the present issue. At the end, it is stated that

the petitioners received decretal amount through District Court vide

Cheque No.182968 dated 16.09.2006 and the petitioners filed

objections after lapse of 14 years from the date of payment of the MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

decretal amount., as such the writ petition is not maintainable and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

The respondents filed reply affidavit, reiterating the

contentions while denying the letter dated 02.09.2006 addressed by

the Advocate, while asserting that, such issue is already covered by

judgment of this Court, the copy of judgment is also filed along with

the reply, for perusal of this Court and finally requested to issue a

direction as claimed for.

During hearing, Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ

petitions, while drawing attention of this Court to the common order

in W.P.No.4128 of 2007 & batch dated 04.08.2008 to contend that,

addressing letter dated 02.09.2006 by the Advocate is not sufficient

to deny payment of compensation. At the end, learned counsel

also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge in

Mettukuru Chengamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2,

wherein the learned single Judge held that respondents are liable to

pay additional market value, as well as solatium within specified

period and they cannot avoid payment of compensation awarded to

the respondents therein.

Similarly, learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to the

judgment of Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi through Power

of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C3, so also, the judgment in Sunder v.

Union of India4. On the basis of the law laid down in the above

judgments, learned counsel requested to issue a direction as

claimed.

3 2012 Law Suit (SC) 743

2001 Law Suit (SC) 1251 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition supported the order of the respondents, taking

advantage of the letter of the Advocate who allegedly agreed not to

claim any amount of compensation approaching Lok Adalat or any

other Court. On the basis of the letter of the learned counsel for the

petitioner only, the Government did not pay the amount claimed by

these petitioners; as such the writ petition is not maintainable after

lapse of 14 years from the date of receipt of compensation amount

and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents filed

calculation memos and objections thereto, but those memos need

not be considered for the present, in the present case.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the points that need to be answered are as follows:

1. Whether Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 can deny payment of compensation on the basis of letter addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 on the file of District Judge, Kadapa and partly confirmed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S.No.513 of 2004 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad?

2. If not, whether the writ petition is maintainable due to delay and latches and on account of availability of effective, efficacious remedy of execution of an award passed by the referral court in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 and partly confirmed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S.No.513 of 2004?

P O I N T No.1:

The facts are not in dispute. The only dispute is about the

letter addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner in MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 undertaking that the petitioners will not

approach Lok Adalat or any other Court claiming any amount, while

receiving compensation.

It is an undisputed fact that, land of these petitioners was

acquired, reference was made under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, a decree and decretal order was passed by the

District Judge, Kadapa in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001. At the same time,

filing of appeal by the third respondent in A.S.No.513 of 2004 is not

in quarrel. According to the petitioners, in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001

the Court enhanced compensation payable to the structures @ 100%

over and above the compensation already fixed by order and decretal

order dated 26.02.2002. But, in A.S.No.513 of 2004 filed by the third

respondent, the amount of compensation payable for the structures

was reduced to 80%. The basis for non-payment of balance of the

amount is letter addressed by the counsel and it is extracted herein.

"I am the Advocate on behalf of the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.437/2001, on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to enhance and fixed the market value of the structures at 100% over and above the market valued fixed by the L.A.O. On that the L.A.O preferred appeals against the orders of the learned District Judge, Kadapa. On merits the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reduce and fixed the market value of the structures at 80% over and above the market value fixed by the L.A.O. The claimants are willing to receive the compensation amount with interest at 9% and 15% on market value. Further the claimants state that they will not go to the Court or Lok Adalat further in the above cases. So, you are hereby requested to deposit the decretal charges in the above cases in the Court of the Hon'ble District Judge, Kadapa."

Taking advantage of this letter, the respondents disowned their

liability to pay additional amount of compensation, as awarded in

L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 and partly confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004.

MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

A similar question fell for consideration in W.P.No.14864 of 2007

where the Court vide order dated 20.09.2007 held as follows:

Be that as it may, in these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying interest on the additional market value as well as solatium, which was already deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. The non- payment of the said interest is admittedly on the basis of a letter addressed by the advocate of the petitioners stating that the petitioners have given up the right in respect of the interest claimed. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petitions are filed.

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having considered the effect of the similar letter addressed by the counsel for the claimants covered by the same notification, W.P.No.14864 of 2007 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 20-09-2007 holding as under:

"The only stand of the respondents is that the claim for interest was given up as per the letter filed by the petitioners and therefore, they cannot make a claim for the same. But, a perusal of the letter no doubt does not make any reference either to additional market value or solatium, which was already deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, to which the petitioners are entitled to in respect of the properties they have lost. When once the additional market value and solatium has already been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, equally, the petitioners are entitled to interest on additional market value as well as solatium, as per the judgments of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit the interest payable on the additional market value as well as solatium within a period of two months, failing which, the petitioners are entitled to file EPs seeking execution of that part of the decree passed by this Court in the appeals. With reference to the amounts already deposited, the Court below is directed to disburse the same without insisting for filing any full satisfaction memos."

The fact that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated and the additional market value as well as solatium to which the petitioners are entitled to has already been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.14864 of 2007, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to deposit the interest payable on the additional market value as well as the solatium within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Relying on the same judgment, the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.4128 of 2017 and batch reiterated the same principle. The

judgment of the learned single Judge in the writ petitions referred

above is binding on this Court, being a coordinate bench. Applying

the principle laid down in the above judgment, the letter addressed

by the Advocate is not sufficient to deny payment of compensation,

since the Advocate cannot correspond with the Government and

address such letter to the Government, as he was authroized to

appear before the Court, Tribunals, and plead on behalf of the

petitioners by virtue of vakalat signed by these petitioners. But, the

counsel overstepped from his authority, obviously for different

reasons and addressed such letter to the Government which is

impermissible under law. When decree and decretal order are passed

by the District Judge, partly confirmed by the High Court, when

there is a decree in favour of these petitioners and when the

petitioners gave up their claim while satisfying themselves for the

amount already paid, such letter allegedly addressed by the learned

counsel for the petitioners amounts to recording full satisfaction of

decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001, affirmed by the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S.No. 513 of 2004. The letter

was addressed by the Advocate on 02.09.2006 but it was not

certified as required under Order XXI Rule 1 of C.P.C and the

limitation for such certification is one month from the date of

payment through Court. But, here, the respondents did not get full

satisfaction recorded, only kept the letter with them, though he was

not authorized to address such letters i.e. correspond with the

Government and address such letters for recording full satisfaction

of the decree.

MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Advocates, in addition to being professionals, are also officers

of the courts and play a vital role in the administration of justice.

Accordingly, a set of rules that govern their professional conduct

arise out of the duty that they owe the court, the client, their

opponents and other advocates. Chapter-II of Bar Council of India

Rules deals with Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.

An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting

his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the

community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be

lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for

a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be

improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing obligation, an advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests

of his client and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter

mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter

mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as

general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be

construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative

though not specifically mentioned. Clause 19 of Section-II thereto

says that, an advocate shall not act on the instructions of any

person other than his client or his authorised agent, but the

Advocate for petitioners in L.A.O.Ps without sense of responsibility

issued such letter in total disregard of his duty towards client and

the State stooped to such level of belligerency. Therefore, the letter

can never be a basis to deny the claim of these petitioners and in

view of the law declared by these Courts in the judgments referred

above and by applying those principles to the present facts of the

case, I hold that the counsel is not entitled to address such letter on MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

behalf of the parties without the signature of these petitioners and

such uncertified full satisfaction cannot be a ground to deny

payment of balance amount of compensation, thereby, I hold that

the respondents are bound to pay balance of compensation, as

claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition.

In the instant case on record, despite passing an order and

decretal order in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 No.437 of 2001 and partly

confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004, while making these petitioners to

believe that the respondents will pay and disown their liability on the

pretext that the counsel for the petitioners in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001

No.437 of 2001 addressed letter disclaiming the amount due and

that he was not authorized to act prejudicial to the interest even

without obtaining signatures of these petitioners.

The State is expected to be a model litigant maintaining ethical

standards in prosecuting the litigation being a compulsive litigant.

The Government of India in view of certain observations made in

various Judgments by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v.

M/s.Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd.,5 and Chief Conservator of

Forest v. Collector6 adopted National Litigation Policy, but it did not

yield fruitful results and it totally failed. But, the Government of

India being a model litigant is under obligation in common law has

not always been clear, but the written policies seek to provide clarity

and guidance and what conduct is required of a model litigant.

Behind each of the duties is an overreaching duty to act honestly,

fairly, with complete propriety and in accordance with the highest

professional standards. It goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to

(1978) 1 SCC 68

(2003) 3 SCC 472 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

act in accordance with their ethical obligations and merely acting

honestly or in accordance with law and court rules. The policies all

variously refer to the following specific duties, some of which have

long been recognized by the Court:

a)    Dealing with claims promptly;
b)    Minimising delay in proceedings';
c)    Making an early assessment of the prospects of success and
      potential liability in claims;
d)    Paying legitimate claims without litigation;
e)    Acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation;
f)    Endeavouring to avoid, prevent or limit the scope of litigation and

participating in alternative dispute resolution where appropriate;

g)    Missing costs in proceedings;
h)    Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to
      litigate a legitimate claim;
i)    Not taking technical points unless the agencies interests would be
      compromised;
j)    Not understanding and pursuing appeals unless there are

reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest; and

k) Apologising when the Government or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.

These guidelines, as recognized by Common Wealth Countries,

the litigation in the courts would be minimized though the

Government of India or State adopted Litigation Policy, but it did not

serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the Government being litigant is

at least expected to follow the ethical issues and practical

considerations while dealing with a citizen in litigation before the

Court and the government is expected to be honest litigant, to

minimize the litigation,

The State of Andhra Pradesh also adopted State Litigation

Policy dated 30.08.2011 and certain guidelines have been issued

with objects mentioned in second para of Litigation Policy. The main

objects are to manage and conduct litigation in a coordinated and

time bound manner; ensure that strong cases are won and weak

cases are not pursued needlessly; reduce overall government MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

litigation in courts thereby providing relief to the judiciary etc., and

also issued certain directions to prevent and control avoidable

litigation and settlement of disputes in alternative dispute resolution

system, guidelines for filing of appeals. But without keeping in mind,

the litigation policy, framed by State dated 30.08.2011, government

agencies and authorities are proliferating the litigation by evasive

and un-substantive pleas before court, thereby increasing litigation

in the courts, which is contrary to guidelines issued by Apex Court

in the judgments referred supra. Thus, to achieve the real object of

litigation policy, the procedure must be fair and atleast

implementation of Law Commission recommendations would serve

purpose to some extent.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and High Court

in the judgments referred supra, the State is not supposed to take

advantage of said letter allegedly issued by the counsel, State being a

fair and compulsive litigant, but invented such theory, which is

impermissible under law. Hence, I hold that the letter of advocate is

not a ground to avoid payment of compensation which is statutory

right. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners

and against the respondents.

P O I N T No.2

One of the major contentions is that the writ petition is not

maintainable without availing equally efficacious effective and

statutory remedy available to the petitioners. Since the decree is

executable, the petitioners may approach the executing court to

execute the decree and recover the amount, according to the

contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Acquisition. But the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.

Lakshminarayana Reddy vehemently contended that, even though

execution petition can be filed against such an order, still the

petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court invoking

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and placed reliance on

judgment of the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Bhamidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer,

Yeleru Reservoir Project (referred supra), wherein the Court held as

follows:

26. The above discussion would lead us to hold that the power, which the High Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution, is a discretionary power. Though the power is discretionary and no limits can be placed upon such discretion, it has been held judicially that power must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily. There are no limits to such power and it has to be exercised judiciously. However, while exercising this power courts have imposed certain limits in exercise of those powers, which are known as self-imposed limitations. One of the self-imposed restrictions is that High Court generally refrains from entertaining a writ petition when there is adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available to a party, and, when such alternate remedy available is a statutory remedy, such statutory remedy has been duly exhausted. Availability of such alternate and efficacious or statutory remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a writ petition in the given facts and circumstances. We need not multiply the circumstances in which such discretionary power may be exercised by the Court in such matters despite availability of such alternate, adequate and efficacious remedy. But the limits as noticed in B. Govinda Reddy's case (4 supra) by a learned single Judge of this Court are sufficient that in cases arising out of the Act where the amount of compensation, finally determined has not been paid, a person must first resort to the alternate efficacious remedy of taking out execution and when despite taking out execution proceedings, if there is any delay caused on the part of authorities, resort can be had to filing of a writ petition in this Court and, this Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, may issue directions for immediate deposit of the amount of compensation by the State Government or the authorities on whose behalf the land has been acquired.

27. In view of the above, we hold that the view taken by the Full Bench in Vemula Prabhakar's case (1 supra) that in a matter arising out of the Act, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

direction against the State to deposit the amount of compensation determined which has finally been settled will not be maintainable is bad and contrary to the principles of law as noticed hereinabove and accordingly we overrule the same and hold that the view taken by the learned single Judge in B. Govinda Reddy's case (4 supra) is the correct exposition of law."

In an identical situation where the respondent- State adopted

a similar practice to deny payment of compensation on the basis of

the letter of the counsel. This contention was turned down by the

High Court in the judgment referred above. Thus, it is clear that the

modus operandi of the petitioner is to avoid payment of

compensation by obtaining letters from the advocate. In such case,

this Court cannot accept such contention, since such contention was

already turned down/rejected by this Court in the earlier writ

petitions.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the

learned single Judge in Mettukuru Chengamma v. Government of

Andhra Pradesh7, wherein the learned single Judge issued direction

for payment of compensation, having considered the similar facts

arising out of the same acquisition proceedings held that as follows:

"The only stand of the respondents is that the claim for interest was given up as per the letter filed by the petitioners and therefore, they cannot make a claim for the same. But, a perusal of the letter no doubt does not make any reference either to additional market value or solatium, which was already deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, to which the petitioners are entitled to in respect of the properties they have lost. When once the additional market value and solatium has already been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, equally, the petitioners are entitled to interest on additional market value as well as solatium, as per the judgments of the Supreme Court.

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to deposit the interest payable on the additional market value as well as solatium within a period of two months, failing which, the petitioners are entitled to

MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

filed EPs seeking execution of that part of the decree passed by this Court in the appeals. With reference to the amounts already deposited, the Court below is directed to disburse the same without insisting for filing any full satisfaction memos."

In Pallem Chinnakka died per L.R. Rami Reddy v. The

Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project8, the learned

single Judge reiterated the principle laid down in Mettukuru

Chengamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra).

Recently, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Radha

Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others9

summarized the following six principles governing the exercise of writ

jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate

remedy, despite availability of efficacious alternative statutory

remedy under the Act.

"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where a. the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; b. there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or c. the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226

W.P.No.4128 of 2007 & batch dated 04.08.2008 9 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

The same principles were reiterated by the Full Bench of the

Apex Court in M/s. Magadh Sugar & Energy Limited v. The State

of Bihar10.

It is the specific case of the petitioners that they made several

oral representations and finally made written representation for

payment of compensation, as claimed in the writ petition. But, for

the reasons best known to the respondents, they did not respondent

to any of the representation positively or negatively, thereby, there is

a demand and denial to discharge of public duty, being a public

officer. In such case, writ petition is maintainable. When a public

officer failed to discharge his public duty i.e. payment of balance

compensation amount and invented such a story of disclaiming

balance compensation by the counsel, the counsel is incompetent to

address such letter, it is for the petitioners to take appropriate action

against such counsel who addressed such letter against the interest

of the petitioners. therefore, the writ petition is maintainable under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India by applying the principle laid

down by the Apex Court and various High Courts in the judgments

referred above.

The major contention of the respondents is that, the claim of

this petitioner is delayed and there are latches on the part of this

10 Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021 dated 24.09.2021 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

petitioner. But, delay and latches in land acquisition proceedings is

not a ground to deny the claim. However, in Tukaram Kana Joshi

through Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C (referred supra) the

question before the Apex Court was whether the State should be

allowed to deprive a citizen of his property without adhering to the

law. The Apex Court held that, there are authorities which state that

delay and latches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of

these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of

compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of

statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of

similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities

that lay down that delay and latches debar a citizen from seeking

remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated,

under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals

with a different scenario altogether. Functionaries of the State took

over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any

sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the

benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the

procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other

permissible statutory mode. There is a distinction, a true and

concrete distinction, between the principle of "eminent domain" and

"police power" of the State. Under certain circumstances, the police

power of the State may be used temporarily, to take possession of

property but the present case clearly shows that neither of the said

powers have been exercised. A question then arises with respect to

the authority or power under which the State entered upon the land.

It is evident that the act of the State amounts to encroachment, in

exercise of "absolute power" which in common parlance is also called MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

abuse of power or use of muscle power. To further clarify this

position, it must be noted that the authorities have treated the land

owner as a 'subject' of medieval India, but not as a 'citizen' under our

constitution.

After dealing with the principles in various judgments relied on

by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents in detail,

the Court concluded in Paragraph No.20 as follows:

"20. Be that as it may, ultimately, good sense prevailed, and learned senior counsel appearing for the State came forward with a welcome suggestion stating that in order to redress the grievances of the appellants, the respondent-authorities would notify the land in dispute under Section 4 of the Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. As the appellants have full notice and information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act are dispensed with. Notice under Section 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4 weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings would thus, be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award amount will be made to the claimants/persons- interested immediately thereafter, along with all statutory benefits. The appellants shall be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of compensation, if so desired."

In Sunder v. Union of India (referred supra), the Full Bench

of the Supreme Court dealt with the interest under Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 payable on the compensation awarded to

the petitioners. But, that was not really an issue, since the claim was

already settled by the High Court in the appeal. But, at the cost of

repetition, the counsel relied on the judgment where the Apex Court

concluded as follows:

"Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of section 28 of the act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well."

In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly."

Respondents have acted irresponsibly though they were

expected to litigate within expected judicial norms. Respondents like

belligerent litigants could not resist the temptation of litigation and

have fought their legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise

is "uneven" as on one side is a public institution whereas on the

other side is a private individual.

In such a case, one is bound to recall the observations made

by the Supreme Court in Dilbagh Rai Jerry vs. Union of India11,

wherein, the Apex Court made few observations not on the merits

but on governmental disposition to litigation, the present case being

symptomatic of a serious deficiency and observed that, in this

country the State is the largest litigant to-day and the huge

expenditure involved make a big draft on the public exchequer. In

the contest of expanding dimensions of State activity and

responsibility, is it unfair to expect finer sense and sensibility in its

litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led

the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its

AIR 1974 SC 130 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

own employee a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which

has been pursued right up to the summit court here and has been

negatived in the judgment just pronounced. Instances of this type

are legion as is evidenced by the fact that the Law Commission of

India in a recent report on amendments to the Civil Procedure Code

has suggested the deletion of Section 80, finding that wholesome

provision hardly ever utilised by Government, and has gone further

to provide a special procedure for government litigation to highlight

the need for an activist policy of just settlement of claims where the

State is a party. It is not right for a welfare State like to be Janus-

faced, and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the

poor, contest the claims of poor employees under it pleading

limitation and the like. That the tendency is chronic flows from

certain observations.

In P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India12, the Kerala High Court

held that, the State under our Constitution undertakes economic

activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably get

involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be

remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case

against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook ; for, the State's

interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and

never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid

a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal

devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant

and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if

on the merits the case is weak, government shows a willingness to

AIR 1972 Ker 103, 107: para 5 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations

which move private parties to right in court. The lay-out on litigation

costs and executive time by the State and the agencies is so

staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in

which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting

back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being

tempted into forensic show-downs where a reasonable adjustment is

feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just

terms, giving the legal mentors of government some initiative and

authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but

only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved

at a Conference of Law Minister of India way back in 1957. This

second appeal strikes me as an instance of disregard of that policy. It

must be remembered that the State defined within the ambit of State

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party

trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by

crook. The State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a

substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach

a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage,

simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. This

Court has no hesitation to conclude that public money has been

wasted because of the adamant behaviour of the officers of

respondents due to litigious attitude adopted by those officers in

pursuing the instant litigation before this Court.

In Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal13, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is a matter of concern that

(2010) 1 SCC 512 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and statutory

authorities are on the increase. It was further observed that

statutory authorities which existed for to discharge statutory

functions in public interest should be responsible litigants and

cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections nor act in a callous and

high-handed manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants

with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment.

They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act

negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by

their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no

explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/

restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation.

Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public

and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be

corrected. The Apex Court its view that the governments and

statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should

not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust)

contentions to obstruct the path of justice.

In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International14, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, it is high time that governments

and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon

technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of

citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a

government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the

Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be

upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not

(1979) 4 SCC 176 MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless

of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in

filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has

become unavailable.

The State Government must do what is fair and just to the

citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax

or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the

State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced,

take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the

citizen. (vide Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of

Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh15)

Unwarranted litigation by governments and statutory

authorities basically stem from the two general baseless

assumptions by their officers. They are:

(i) All claims against the government/statutory authorities should be

viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest

court of the land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is

prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach

the Court and secures a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all

orders against them, is not the policy of the governments or

statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are

responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of

litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to

protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision

making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision making.

[(1985) 3 SCC 737] MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to

pass on the responsibility of decision making to courts and

Tribunals."

In view of the perspective pronouncements of the Courts, it is

clear that delay and latches i.e. 14 years delay is not a ground to

deny the claim of these petitioners and that the writ petition is

maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Sunder v. Union of India (referred supra). However, the State being

fair and compulsive litigant, setting up plea of delay and latches is

depreciable. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondents.

In view of my findings on Point Nos. 1 to 2, Respondent Nos. 1

to 3 are under obligation to pay the balance of compensation interest

@ 9% on additional market value and 15% of solatium on the

awarded amount to the petitioners for their acquired structures

covered under Award No.4/97 which has been finally determined in

L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002. But, for the reasons best

known to them, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have set-up a lame excuse

for non-payment while pleading payment of compensation did not

comply with the directions issued by the High Court in A.S.No.513 of

2004. Such conduct by the Government depriving the petitioners

who lost their livelihood due to acquisition of land and structures are

deprived of their property which is impermissible under Article 300-A

of the Constitution of India. However, the calculation memos filed by

these petitioners and respondents needs no further consideration.

But, at the appropriate stage, in case of failure to pay compensation

if any, in contempt case filed, those calculation memos and MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

objections thereto can be considered. But, at this stage, they are not

relevant. Hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue writ of mandamus

in the circumstances stated above, while finding no merits in the

contentions of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition.

In the result, W.P.No.4286 of 2020 is allowed, declaring the

action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not paying the

compensation of statutory benefits to the petitioners in respect of

their acquired structures covered under Award No.4/1997; while

directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in

respect of their acquired structures covered under Award No.4/1997,

as determined in L.A.O.P.No.437 of 2001 dated 26.02.2002 and

confirmed in A.S.No.513 of 2004 dated 09.03.2006.

W.P.No.12287 of 2021

In view of my detailed discussion in W.P.No.4286 of 2020,

W.P.No.12287 of 2021 is allowed, declaring the action of the

respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not paying the compensation

of statutory benefits to the petitioners in respect of their acquired

structures covered under Award No.1/1995; while directing the

respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of

their acquired structures covered under Award No.1/1995, as

determined in L.A.O.P.No.131 of 2001 dated 27.02.2002 and

confirmed in A.S.No.162 of 2004 dated 18.03.2006.

W.P.No.12196 of 2021

In view of my detailed discussion in W.P.No.4286 of 2020,

W.P.No.12196 of 2021 is allowed, declaring the action of the MSM,J W.P No.4286 of 2020 & batch

respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not paying the compensation

of statutory benefits to the petitioners in respect of their acquired

structures covered under Award No.1/1995; while directing the

respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of

their acquired structures covered under Award No.1/1995, as

determined in L.A.O.P.No.130 of 2001 dated 27.02.2002 and

confirmed in A.S.No.452 of 2004 dated 18.03.2006.

W.P.No.12199 of 2021

In view of my detailed discussion in W.P.No.4286 of 2020,

W.P.No.12199 of 2021 is allowed, declaring the action of the

respondents as illegal and arbitrary in not paying the compensation

of statutory benefits to the petitioners in respect of their acquired

structures covered under Award No.1/1995; while directing the

respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of

their acquired structures covered under Award No.1/1995, as

determined in L.A.O.P.No.129 of 2001 dated 27.02.2002 and

confirmed in A.S.No.153 of 2004 dated 18.03.2006.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:28.10.2021

Note: LR copy to be marked b/o SP