K.R. Srinivasa Prasad, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1878 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                     WRIT PETITION No.41653 of 2018

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

―to issue a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Direction or Order declaring the inaction of the respondents in invalidating/cancel/quash the Land Acquisition Award No 6/84-85 dated 16.11.1984 passed by 3rd respondent by considering the representation made by the petitioners dated 20.09.2016 and as per reports of respondent No.3 and 4 dated 24.10.2016, 04.11.2016, 20.04.2017 and 27.07.2017 in respect of land in an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.142-2A Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-5A and Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-7A total an extent of land Ac.1.32 cents of Srikantapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anatapur District since possession has not been taken after award and the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse under deeming provision of Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal and arbitrary and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013"

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are

the absolute owners and possessors of the land measuring an extent

of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.142-2A, Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-5A and

Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-7A, totalling Ac.1.32 cents, of

Srikantapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anatapur District. The

above said land originally belongs to K.R.Krishnaiah and

Smt.Sathyabhama. The said Smt Sathyabhama had half share in the

above property. She in turn relinquished her right over the said

property by executing a registered relinquishment deed dated

11.07.1958 vide document bearing No.1577/1958 registered with

Sub-Registrar office, Hindupur, in favour of K.R.Krishnaiah. Thus,

the said K.R.Krishnaiah had become absolute owner and possessor MSM,J wp_41653_2018

of above said property. After his demise, his only son namely

K.R.Thimmaiah succeeded the property as his sole legal heir. The

petitioners being the sole legal heirs of K.R.Thimmaiah are in

exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land till this date.

Respondent No.3 issued notification for acquisition of land and

after following necessary procedure passed an Award No.6/84-85

dated 16.11.1984 awarding compensation to both K.R.Thimmaiah

and as well Smt. Sathyabhama. After passing the award, there was

legal controversy between K.R.Thimmiah and daughter of

Sathyabhama, namely Nagarathanamma. Respondent No.3 in turn

referred the matter to Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda under Section

30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner made several

requests to the revenue authorities to withdraw/cancel the award

since possession is remains with them though the award was passed

in the year 1984; the award and land acquisition proceedings are

lapsed due to failure to take possession, even after lapse of more

than thirty years.

On 20.09.2016 the petitioners made representation to

Nandamuri Balakrishna, MLA of Hindupur Assembly Constituency.

He in turn endorsed the same to respondent No.2 herein for

necessary action against. Respondent No.2 after conducting

necessary enquiry issued proceedings in RC.No.G1/6442/2016

dated 29.09.2016 directing respondent No.3 herein to enquire into

the matter and take necessary action as per rules and submit

detailed report in the office of respondent No.2.

In pursuance of the direction of respondent No.2, the

respondent No.3 and 4 enquired into the matter, and submitted

report vide Rc.No.3618/2016/K Dt.27.07.2017 stating that the said MSM,J wp_41653_2018

lands were not handed over to the Postal Department and Award

amount not disbursed. Further, the subject land is lying waste and

no developments in the said land. After receiving the said report from

the Revenue authorities, respondent No.2 did not pass any order on

the representation till date. Though the revenue authorities made

report by mentioning the ground reality, for the best reasons known

to respondent No.2, he did not pass any order on the representation

of the petitioners.

The report submitted by the revenue authorities clearly

establish that the possession of the subject land still with the

petitioners after passing award and further, compensation was lying

with the authorities only. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to

declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the

subject land in question are deemed to have been elapsed in view of

Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

short ―the Act 30 of 2013‖)

Though the petitioners made representation to respondent

No.2 to cancel/quash Land Acquisition proceedings for the subject

land, no action was taken and no communication is sent to the

petitioners. Therefore, in action of the respondents is illegal,

arbitrary and such act of the respondents would not only vitiate

Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, and also constitutional

right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and

provisions of the Act 30 of 2013, requested to issue a direction as

claimed in the writ petition.

Respondent No.3 filed counter admitting about acquisition of

land, passing of award and deposit of amount into the Court under MSM,J wp_41653_2018

the reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 in view of the dispute between the daughter of Satyabhama

and legal heirs of K.R.Thimmaiah.

Respondent No.3 also narrated the purpose of acquisition i.e.

construction of staff quarters of Postal department at Hindupur. On

receipt of requisition from the postal department, the sub-Collector,

Penukonda directed the Tahsildar, Hindupur to expedite the DN and

DD proposals in respect of requisitioned lands vide

Rc.No.4495/1979/K dated 29.11.1980. Accordingly, the then

Tahsildar, Hindupur submitted the DN and DD proposals and after

following necessary prorcedure, land acquisition proceedings are

completed and passed an award. Later, errata was issued to the

award, as permitted under law and issued notification afresh. The

postal department, Hindupur deposited Rs.30,360/- vide demand

draft No.OL/A5328448 dated 28.03.1984 drawn on SBI, Hindupur

branch towards the value of land i.e. compensation.

Respondent No.3 also narrated about the earlier legal

proceedings in writ petition No.13313 of 1985 on the file of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh filed against the acquisition of land, but the

same was dismissed on the ground that it become infructuous.

Later, K.R.Thimmaiah filed another writ petition No.3314 of 1990

before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which is still

pending before the High Court.

As per the directions of the Collector, Ananthapuramu, the

Tahsildar, Hindupur has enquired in to the matter. During the

enquiry of the Tahsildar, the petitioners have stated that since 1984

the above land is under their possession, that the land has not been

handed over by Revenue Department to Postal Department and MSM,J wp_41653_2018

Postal Department has not occupied till today. At present there are

no civil disputes among their family members or with others.

Further, the Tahsildar, Hindupur reported that during the inspection

of the subject lands it is noticed that the land is lying vacant and

covered with thorny bushes without any encroachments. After

passing of the Award No. 6/84-85 under the Land Acquisition Act,

by the then Assistant Collector, Penukonda, the land has not been

handed over to the Postal Department and Postal Department has

not been taken possession of the subject land and have not been

taken up any developmental activities on ground. It is clearly

established that the concerned department has no further interest

on the subject land. As per the report of the Tahsildar, Hindupur, a

detailed report was submitted to the District Collector

Anantapuramu in this Office Rc.No:3168/2016/K dated 04.11.2016

duly requesting that the request of the Petitioners may be considered

and land in Sy.No:142-2A, 5A and 7A extent Ac.1.32 cents of

Sreekantapuram Village may be restored as the Award amount was

not disbursed and the subject land was not handed over to the

Postal Department and not utilized by the concerned authorities, to

prevent further legal hurdles subject to condition of obtaining

consent from the Postal Department. Thereupon, the District

Collector, Ananthapuramu in Rc.No: G1/6442/16 dated 26.12.16

has raised several queries on the report.

The Superintendent of Post Office, Hindupur submitted reply

without any enclosures to support his version, stating that "a site

measuring an extent of Ac.1.32 cents in Sy.No.142-2A, 5A and 7A of

Sreekantpauram was acquired on 27.03.1985 for construction of

Postal quarters at Hindupur town, that the said site is in possession MSM,J wp_41653_2018

of Department of Posts from 27.03.1985, that the Department of

Posts had constructed a gate and provided with barbed wire fencing,

during March 2002 by incurring sum of Rs.94,500/- and also

provided 25 pillars across the boundary of the site during Jan 2013

by incurring a sum of Rs.75,000/- that there was no objection from

any corner when the construction work was taken up by Department

of Posts. Thus, the possession of the property is with the postal

department. The Superintendent of Post Office also denied the

possession of the property claimed by K.R.Thimmaiah and his family

members as per the office records and on physical verification.

Respondent No.3 further contended that as per the records

available in the Office the Award amount was not disbursed and the

subject land was not handed over to the Postal Dept., further as per

the report of the Tahsildar, Hindupur the land is lying waste and not

utilized by the concerned authorities. The Tahsildar, Hindupur

reported that, it is clear that when the subject land has not been

handed over to requisition department, even though the Award has

been passed, the question of consent of the Postal Department for

cancelling the Award No.6/84-85 dated 16.11.1984 does not arise

as the said Award has not been implemented, so far, the

requisitioned authority (postal department) has not been shown any

further interest on the subject land for the last 32 years.

Respondent No.3 also narrated about the incidents that had

taken place till the date of filing of counter, they are unnecessary for

deciding the issue involved in the case. Therefore, they are ignored.

Respondent No.3 further contended that a detailed report was

submitted to the District Collector Anantapuramu (for

Rc.No.G1/6442/16 Dated 26.12.16) in Rc.No.3168/2016/K dated MSM,J wp_41653_2018

27.07.2017, wherein the Tahsildar Hindupur has reported that he

has inspected the subject land along with Mandal Surveyor, Mandal

Revenue Inspector-1, Hindupur, Village Revenue Officer and Village

Revenue Assistants of Hindupur and VRO Sreekantapuram, and

reported that the above land is lying waste with thorny bushes and

no such development activity has been taken up over by the Postal

Department, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

During hearing, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel on

behalf of Sri P.Narahari Babu, instructing counsel, would submit

that mere deposit of compensation amount to the credit of O.P.No.20

of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur does

not amount to payment of compensation as mandated under Section

24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013, and at the same time when the

possession of the property was not taken over, proceedings under the

Land Acquisition Act are deemed to have been lapsed. Therefore, in

the eye of law, no acquisition has taken place, requested to pass

appropriate orders as claimed by the petitioners.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

would submit that the possession of the land is with the postal

department (requisition department) and that the mere deposit of

compensation to the credit of O.P.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the

Additional District Judge, Hindupur is sufficient as a reference was

made to the Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 in view of the rival claims for receiving compensation.

Therefore, possession was taken over by the revenue department and

handed over to the postal department and deposit of compensation

to the credit of O.P.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District

Judge, Hindupur is sufficient and the award has not been deemed to MSM,J wp_41653_2018

have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013, requested

to dismiss the writ petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the point need be answered by this Court is as follows:

Whether the possession of the property in an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy.No.142-2A Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-5A and Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-7A total an extent of land Ac.1.32 cents of Srikantapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anatapur District was taken over by the acquisition Department and Whether the deposit of amount in reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not sufficient, thereby award is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013? If so, Award No.6/84-85 dated 16.11.1984 passed by respondent No.3 be declared as illegal, void and contrary to the provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India?

P O I N T:

Passing of Award No.6/84-85 dated 16.11.1984 by respondent

No.3, deposit of amount to the credit of O.P.No.20 of 1987 on the file

of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in view of rival claims

between the family members of K.R.Thimmaiah and

Smt.Satyabhama, who relinquished her right over half share of land

by executing registered relinquishment deed dated 11.07.1958.

The only dispute is with regard to taking possession of the

land by acquisition department on payment of the compensation to

the landholder.

MSM,J wp_41653_2018

In view of the limited controversy regarding taking over

possession of the property by the acquisition department and deposit

of amount to the credit of O.P.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the

Additional District Judge, Hindupur, it is necessary to the advert to

Section 24 (2) of the Act 30 of 2013 and the same is extracted

hereunder.

24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

A bare perusal of Section 24 (2) of the Act 30 of 2013 and

proviso thereto, it consists of two expressions i.e. possession of land

has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the Award

will be lapsed for the failure on the part of the acquisition MSM,J wp_41653_2018

department to take necessary steps in pursuance of the acquisition.

This question was considered by the Apex Court in ―Indore

Development Authority v. Manoharlal1‖, held as follows:

―When we read the word "or" as 'and' in the main part of Section 24(2), it is clear that the proviso has to stay as part of Section 24(2) where it has been placed by the legislature, and only then it makes sense. If 'or' used in- between two negative conditions of 'possession has not been taken' or 'compensation has not been paid,' disjunctively, in that case, the proviso cannot be operative and would become otiose and would make no sense as part of Section 24(2). In case of amount not having been paid the acquisition has to lapse, though possession (of the land) has been taken would not be the proper interpretation of the main part as mentioned above, when "or" is read conjunctively, Section 24(2) provided for lapse in a case where possession has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid, in such a case proviso becomes operative in given exigency of not depositing amount with respect to majority of landholdings.

A reading of Section 24(2) shows that in case possession has been taken even if the compensation has not been paid, the proceedings shall not lapse. In case payment has not been made nor deposited with respect to the majority of the holdings in the accounts of the beneficiaries, then all the beneficiaries specified in the notification Under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall get the enhanced compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013.

Section 24(2) not only deals with failure to take physical possession but also failure to make payment of compensation. If both things have not been done, there is lapse of the acquisition proceeding. But where payment has been made though possession has been taken or payment has been made to some of the persons but not to all, and it has also not been deposited as envisaged in the proviso, in that event all beneficiaries (under the same award) shall get higher compensation. This is because once possession is been taken, there can be no lapse of the proceedings, and higher compensation is intended on failure to deposit the compensation. Once an award has been passed and possession has been taken, there is absolute vesting of the land, as such higher compensation follows under the proviso, which is beneficial to holders. In a case where both the negative conditions have not been fulfilled, as mentioned in Section 24(2), there is a lapse. Thus, the proviso, in our opinion is a wholesome provision and is, in fact, a part of Section 24(2); it fits in the context of Section 24(2) as deposit is related with the payment of compensation and lapse is provided due to non-payment along with not taking possession for five years or more whereas for non-deposit higher compensation is provided. Thus, when one of the conditions has been

AIR 2020 SC 1496 MSM,J wp_41653_2018

satisfied in case payment has been made, or possession has not been taken, there is no lapse of the proceedings as both the negative conditions must co- exist.

When we consider the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) where an award has been passed Under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Act as if it has not been repealed. The only exception carved out is the period of 5 years or more and that too by providing a non-obstante Clause in Section 24(2) to anything contained in Section 24(1). The non-obstante Clause qualifies the proviso also to Section 24(2). It has to be read as part of Section 24(2) as it is an exception to Section 24(1)(b). In our opinion, Section 24(1)(b) is a self- contained provision, and is also a part of the non-obstante Clause to the other provisions of the Act as provided in Sub-section (1). Parliament worked out an exception, by providing a non-obstante Clause in Section 24(2), to Section 24(1). Compensation is to be paid Under Section 24(1)(b) under the Act of 1894 and not under the Act of 2013. As such Section 24(2) is an exception to Section 24(1)(b) and the proviso is also an exception which fits in with non-obstante Clause of Section 24(2) only. Any other interpretation will be derogatory to the provisions contained in Section 24(1)(b) which provides that the pending proceedings shall continue under the Act of 1894 as if it had not been repealed, that would include the part relating to compensation too. Even if there is no lapse of proceedings Under Section 24(1)(a), only higher compensation follows Under Section 24(1)(a). Section 24(2) deals with the award having been made five years or before the commencement of the new Act. The legislative history also indicates/it was intended that five years' period should be adequate to make payment of compensation and to take possession. In that spirit, the proviso has been carved out as part of Section 24(2). Thus when Parliament has placed it at a particular place, by a process of reasoning, there can be no lifting and relocation of the provision. To bodily lift it would be an impermissible exercise. Unless it produces absurd results and does not fit in the scheme of the Act and the provisions to which it is attached such an interpretation, doing violence to the express provision, is not a legitimate interpretative exercise. There is no need to add it as the proviso to Section 24(1)(b) as it has not been done by the legislature, and it makes sense where it has been placed. It need not be lifted.‖

Similarly, the Apex Court also considered the scope of Section

24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 in view of the expression ‗paid'

employed in Section 24 (2) and explained the same.

MSM,J wp_41653_2018

―Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word "deposited", which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the Act of 1894, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section 31(2) on being 'prevented' from making the payment even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed Under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as envisaged Under Section 34, but acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non-payment of the amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non-deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be entitled to by the collector). In such case, the landowner would be entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference court.‖

In the said judgment, the Apex Court, in detail, discussed

about the purport of Section 24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 and

ultimately concluded as referred supra.

In the instant case, deposit of amount into the Court in the

reference Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not in

dispute, hence the deposit of compensation amount is sufficient

compliance of one of the conditions enumerated under Section 24 (2)

of the Act No.30 of 2013.

Second alternative condition is taking over possession, but it is

evident from the conclusions arrived at by the Apex Court in the

judgment (referred supra) that compliance of any one of the

conditions enumerated under Section 24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013

is suffice to validate such land acquisition proceedings. Therefore,

the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act is not deemed to have been lapsed, entitling the petitioners to

claim compensation as per the provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013.

MSM,J wp_41653_2018

In the instant case, a vague contention is raised that the

deposit of compensation is not sufficient compliance of Section 24 (2)

of the Act No.30 of 2013, which would lead to lapse of award in view

of plain language employed in Section 24 (2) of the Act No.30 of

2013. As seen from the material on record and contentions of

respondents including the judicial admission made by the petitioner

in the affidavit that the amount of compensation awarded to the

petitioners is deposited into the Court i.e. Additional District Court,

Hindupur. Copy of the proceedings is also placed on record to

establish reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, which would clinchingly establish that the respondents

complied one of the alternative conditions prescribed under Section

24 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013. Thus, an amount of Rs.30,360/- was

deposited to the credit of O.P.No.20 of 1987 on the file of the

Additional District Judge, Hindupur in the reference under Section

30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This would suffice to declare

the award passed by the authorities as valid while rejecting the

contention of Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel that the

acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed in terms of Section 24 of

the Act No.30 of 2013. Therefore, I find no substance in the

contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioners sought to declare the inaction of the

respondents in invalidating/cancel/quash the Land Acquisition

Award No 6/84-85 dated 16.11.1984 passed by respondent No.3 by

considering the representation made by the petitioners dated

20.09.2016 and as per reports of respondent No.3 and 4 dated MSM,J wp_41653_2018

24.10.2016, 04.11.2016, 20.04.2017 and 27.07.2017 in respect of

land in an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in Sy No.142-2A Ac.0.54 cents in

Sy.No.142-5A and Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.142-7A total an extent of

land Ac.1.32 cents of Srikantapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal,

Anatapur District, since, possession has not been taken after award

and the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse under

deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 as illegal

and arbitrary and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India

while directing respondent No.3 to assess the compensation under

the Act No.30 of 2013.

As discussed above, in view of the judgment of the

constitutional bench of Apex Court in ―Indore Development

Authority v. Manoharlal‖ (referred supra), issue of direction to the

respondents to invalidate or cancel the award passed by the

respondents does not arise, since, the award is valid. Consequently

direction shall not be issued to fix compensation as per the

provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 since the award itself is valid and

the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act shall not be

deemed to be invalid. Hence, I find no merit in the contentions of the

learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the petition is liable to

be dismissed.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

also stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 20.04.2022 Ksp