R.Gurappa Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1601 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                     WRIT PETITION NO.33125 OF 2016

     ORDER:

1) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondents in

not paying the compensation amount as per the Award No. 16/2016

dated 08.01.2016 to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation amount to

the petitioners as per the Award No.16/2016 dated 08.01.2016 with

interest from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of

compensation.

2) The brief facts of the case are that, on the requisition made by

the Executive Engineer, HNSS Division No.XII Madanapalle to acquire

an extent of Ac.3-57 cents in Sy.No.19/1B2 of Ponnutipalem Village,

Madanapalle Mandal for excavation of Punganer Branch canal under

Handri Niva Srujala Sravanthi Project Phase-II, the second

respondent issued Preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act 30 of 2013')

and published the same in Sakshi daily newspaper on 21.04.2015.

Thereafter, the third respondent approved declaration under Section

19(1) of Act 30 of 2013 and published in daily newspaper dated

19.07.2015. The fourth respondent issued notice dated 28.07.2015

under Section 21(4) of Act 30 of 2013 to the petitioners and others to

appear on 12.08.2015 for award enquiry along with relevant

documents.

MSM,J WP_33125_2016

3) The second petitioner's father purchased an extent of Ac.2-82

cents in Sy.No.19/1B by registered sale deed in the year 1952. After

death of second petitioner's father, the second petitioner and

Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 partitioned the joint family property including

land in Sy.No.19/1B admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-82 cents. Each

petitioner 1 to 3 got Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.19/1B. The first

petitioner has gifted an extent of Ac.0-53 cents in Sy.No.19/B through

registered gift deed in favour of his daughter i.e the fourth petitioner

herein. Thus, all the petitioners became the owners of the land. The

revenue authorities entered the names of the petitioners in revenue

records as pattadars and enjoyers and issued pattadar pass book and

title deed in favour of the petitioners.

4) Pursuant to the notice dated 28.07.2015 issued under Section

21(4) of Act 30 of 2013, the petitioners appeared before the fourth

respondent and produced the revenue records. After due enquiry, the

fourth respondent passed Award No.16/2016 (Reach-III) dated

08.01.2016. As per the Award, the petitioners are entitled to

compensation for an extent of Ac.0-3466, Ac.0-5466, Ac.0-19

respectively.

5) It is further submitted that, total extent of Ac.8-57 cents in

Sy.No.19/B. Out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.3-57 cents was

proposed to be acquired for public purpose. But, the actual extent

acquired in Sy.No.19/1B is Ac.2-76 cents. In the said extent of Ac.2-

76 cents, the petitioners land is Ac.1-63 cents. For the extent of

acquired land, the revenue authorities prepared sub-division record,

assigned Sy.No.19/1B2. As per the Award, the petitioners are entitled

to compensation of Rs.21,26,143/-, Rs,33,53,000/-, Rs.33,154,227/-

and Rs.11,65,514/- respectively. Respondent No.4 did not pay

compensation for the land in dispute i.e. for the land in MSM,J WP_33125_2016

Sy.No.19/1B2, but paid compensation to the other land owners. On

verification, the petitioners came to know that one J. Lakshmi Prasad

and others filed O.S.No.8 of 2016 on the file of Court of Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the Land Acquisition Officer

and three others, claiming that they are owners of Ac.0-59 cents of

acquired land in Sy.No.19/1 and out of the said extent, Ac.0-45 cents

was occupied by the defendants and requested not to release

compensation amount till constitution of Authority under Section 64

of Act 30 of 2013.

6) It is contended that the petitioners are not parties to O.S.No.8

of 2016 and any interim order was passed restraining the

respondents therein from making payment as per Award No.16/2016

dated 08.01.2016 to the petitioners.

7) It is specifically contended that, the civil court has no

jurisdiction to entertain any dispute, since the Authority constituted

under Act 30 of 2013 is alone competent to decide such disputes.

Further, though no interim injunction was granted restraining the

respondents from payment of the amount awarded, Respondent No.4

did not pay compensation amount to these petitioners for their

respective land acquired vide Award No.16/2016. In the absence of

any order, nothing prevented Respondent No.4 from making payment,

but Respondent No.4 failed to discharge public duty being public

officer and retained huge amount of compensation. Hence, the

petitioners sought a direction as stated above.

8) Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit admitting about

acquisition of land of these petitioners and passing of Aaward

No.16/2016 in favour of the petitioners. It is specifically stated that,

an extent of Ac.2-76 cents and Ac.0-77 cents in Sy.No.19/1B2 of

Ponnutipalem Village of Madanapalle Mandal was also acquired under MSM,J WP_33125_2016

Land Acquisition process and Awards were passed to that effect in

Award No.16/2016 (Reach-III) dated 08.01.2016 and Award No.16-

C/2016 dated 08.01.2016 respectively. As per the Award, the

compensation awarded to the petitioners is as follows:

        2)   Sl.No.3)   Sy.No.   4)    Extent in6)    Name of the writ   8)   Amount
                                 5)    Acres 7)       petitioner              sanctioned
                                                                        9)    in Rs.
             1          19/1B2   10)   0.3466   11)   R. Gurrappa Naidu 12)   21,26,143
             2                   13)   0.5466   14)   R Sudhakar Naidu 15)    33,53,000
             3                   16)   0.5468   17)   R Rangaswamy Naidu18)   33,54,227
             4                   19)   0.19     20)   R Manju Bhargavi  21)   11,65,514



9)           Respondent No.4 explained the reason for non-payment of

compensation, specifically alleging that, one J. Lakshmi Prasad s/o

J.V. Narayana Chetty and two others have filed O.S No.8 of 2016

before the Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the District

Collector, Chittoor, the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle and the Tahsildar,

Madanapalle, with a request to grant permanent injunction by

restraining the defendants and their subordinates not to release the

compensation amount till constitution of the Authority as per Section

64 of Act 30 of 2013 and no interim orders were passed in the said

suit.

10) While the mater stood thus, one Chavidi @ Regadi Kullaiswamy

and four others of Ponnutipalem Village, Madanapalle mandal filed

O.S.No.375 of 2016 before Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against

the District Collector, Chittoor, Special Deputy Collector, Sub-

Collector and Tahsildar, Madanapalle, with a request to pass a decree

by restraining the defendants and their subordinates not to disburse

the amount ignoring the right and title of the plaintiffs over an extent

of Ac.1-03 cents in Sy.No.21/1 and Ac.1-32 ½ in Sy.No.19/1 of

Ponnutipalem Village by way of permanent injunction and no interim

orders have been passed in the said suit.

MSM,J WP_33125_2016

11) It is contended that the Assistant Government Pleader

Madanapalle opined that, when the suits are pending before the civil

courts, action if any taken amounts to subjudice and hence the

remedy is to deposit the amount with the competent court. Since the

Authority under Act 30 of 2013 was not constituted, it is decided to

deposit the awarded amount to the credit of bank account of Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. Once compensation is disbursed, it

would be very difficult to recover the same. Hence, the compensation

amount was deposited with the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court,

Madanapalle vide Receive (B) No.6528/2016 dated 19.09.2016. It is

contended that, there are several disputes between the parties and

Respondent No.4 having no other alternative deposited the amount to

the credit of bank account of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Madanapalle and that Respondent No.4 did not neglect or refuse to

discharge her public duty being a public officer and that the

petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the present writ

petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

12) During hearing, M/s. P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ affidavit.

When this Court raised a query about failure of the petitioners to

implead the persons who filed the suit claiming title over the subject

property acquired by Respondent No.4, learned counsel for the

petitioners responded that, since the petitioners are not parties to the

suit, they did not implead the parties to the suits referred above and it

will not cause any prejudice to the persons who filed the suit and

requested to issue a direction as stated above.

13) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

fairly conceded about deposit of amount to the credit of learned

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, as there are disputes and MSM,J WP_33125_2016

the competent authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 was not

constituted by the date of deposit to avoid loss to anyone of the

parties.

14) Admittedly, Award No.16/2016 was passed for an extent of

Ac.2-76 cents inSy.No.19/1B, allegedly belonging to these petitioners.

This Court is not required to adjudicate upon the entitlement of these

petitioners to claim compensation for the land acquired shown in the

table referred above, since the claim made by two different sets of

persons in O.S.No.8 of 2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016, claiming right

and title to the property acquired by Respondent No.4, but no interim

order was passed.

15) As per Section 63 of Act 30 of 2013, jurisdiction of civil courts

barred. No civil court (other than High Court under article 226 or

article 227 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court) shall have

jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition in

respect of which the Collector or the Authority is empowered by or

under this Act, and no injunction shall be granted by any court in

respect of any such matter.

16) Thus, it is clear from Section 63 of Act 30 of 2013, civil court

cannot issue any direction restraining the authorities to from

discharging their duties under Act 30 of 2013. Payment of

compensation to the rightful owner is the duty of Sub-Collector &

Special Deputy Collector (L.A) /Respondent No.4. Therefore, civil

court has no jurisdiction to restrain Respondent No.4 from payment

of compensation to the rightful owner of the land acquired under the

Award. In fact, when there is a dispute regarding entitlement of

apportionment of compensation, a special procedure is prescribed

under Section 77 or 80 of Act 30 of 2013 for making reference to the

authority and file their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer.

MSM,J WP_33125_2016

In case, the authority feels that there is a dispute regarding

apportionment or payment of compensation to the rightful owner,

Sub-Collector & Special Deputy Collector (L.A) /Respondent No.4

shall deposit the amount before the competent authority making

reference under Section 77 or 80 of Act 30 of 2013, which is

corresponding to Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As the

competent authority was not constituted in Chittoor District for

determination of such claims, the amount was kept in deposit with

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, which is not in

accordance with law. However, no reference is made till date even

after constitution of authority under Act 30 of 2013. In those

circumstances, the respondents are bound to pay the amount to the

original owner as per Award No.16/2016. If, really, there is any

dispute, the parties may approach a competent civil court seeking

redressal of their grievance and recover the amount from the person

to whom compensation was paid. Unfortunately, in O.S.No.8 of 2016

and O.S.No.375 of 2016, these petitioners were not impleaded as

parties to the suits, though Award was passed in their favour and

their relief is limited to grant perpetual injunction restraining the

revenue authorities from payment of compensation till constitution of

authority under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013. In fact, competent

authority was constituted earlier, who demitted the office after

completion of the tenure and again competent authority was

appointed under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013 to decide such issues.

But, neither of the parties to the suits approached the competent

authority strictly adhering to the provisions of Act 30 of 2013.

Therefore, in the absence of any claim pending before the competent

authority constituted under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013, and in the

absence of any interim direction by the competent civil court and MSM,J WP_33125_2016

more particularly, when the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8

of 2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016 became virtually infructuous, as the

competent authority was already constituted, Respondent No.4 has

no obligation to pay the compensation to the alleged owner as per

Award No.16/2016. Therefore, Respondent No.4 is directed to

withdraw the amount kept in the deposit with Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Madanapalli and pay compensation amount to the petitioners

together with interest granted thereon within three months from

today. However, payment is subject to the claims to be verified by the

plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016 or by any other

person and the persons who are claiming compensation may

approach either civil court for recovery of the amount if any paid or

the competent authority, subject to permissibility under law.

17) Since no interim order was passed by the Court in O.S.No.8 of

2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016 and no claim is pending before the

competent authority constituted under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013,

failure to pay compensation to the awardees i.e. petitioners as per

Award No.16/2016 would amount to failure to discharge public duty

by public officer - Respondent No.4. Therefore, in those

circumstances, this Court may exercise discretionary power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a direction by way of

writ of mandamus.

18) In Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) through LRs vs. The

Executive Engineer [Diary No.17566 of 2020 dated 03.01.2022], the

Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, it is well settled

that the normal rule is that if on account of acquisition of land a

person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid

compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him

forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation MSM,J WP_33125_2016

amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of

payment thereof. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the judgment referred supra, the petitioners are entitled to

claim interest on the compensation payable.

19) In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of

Respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary, while directing Respondent

No.4 to withdraw the amount kept in the deposit of Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Madanapalli and pay compensation amount to the

petitioners together with interest granted thereon, within three

months from today. However, payment is subject to the claims to be

verified by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.8 of 2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016

or by any other person and the persons who are claiming

compensation may approach either civil court to recover the amount if

any paid, subject to permissibility under law. No costs.

20) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:01.04.2022

SP