Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jonnagadla Lakshmi Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 December, 2022

Bench: A V Sai, Duppala Venkata Ramana

                             1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                         &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                  W.A. No. 961 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

     Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellants,   learned    Government     Pleader       for    Land

Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P. Ganga

Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-

respondent Nos.5 to 8.

     The third parties to W.P.No.33125 of 2016 are the

appellants in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

     This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33125 of 2016,

dated 01.04.2022. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the

present Appeal instituted the aforesaid Writ Petition,

assailing the action of the authorities, in not paying

compensation amount as per the Award No.16 of 2016,

dated 08.01.2016. Preceded by a preliminary Notification

issued   under   Section   11(1)   of   the   Right     to   Fair
                                      2




Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as "the          Act"),      dated 21.04.2015        and a

declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Act, dated

19.07.2015, the competent authority passed an Award

bearing No.16 of 2016 for a total extent of Ac.3.57 Cents in

Sy.No.19/1B2        of    Ponnutipalem       Villlage,      Madanapalle

Mandal, Chittoor District. The purpose of acquisition of

land is for the excavation of Puganur Branch Canal under

HNSS     Project,        Phase-II.       According     to     the     writ

petitioners/respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the present Appeal,

they owned an extent of Ac.2.82 cents out of the above said

total extent of land.

      The learned Single Judge vide order impugned in the

present Writ Appeal, dated 01.04.2022, allowed the Writ

Petition, with a direction to the Sub-Collector & Special

Deputy Collector (L.A.,), the 4th respondent in the Writ

Petition, to withdraw the amount kept in the deposit of the

Court   of   the    learned     Principal     Senior     Civil      Judge,

Madanapalle and pay compensation amount to the writ

petitioners together with interest granted thereon, within
                              3




three (03) months from the date of the order. The learned

Single Judge also observed that the said payment would be

subject to the claims to be verified by the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.8 of 2016 and O.S.No.375 of 2016 and also kept it

open for the plaintiffs in the said suits to approach the

competent Civil Court for recovery of the amount. As

mentioned supra, the writ appellants, who admittedly were

not parties in the Writ Petition have come up before this

Court with the present Letters Patent Appeal.

     Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the

appellants contends that the issue pertaining to the

entitlement to the compensation amount is pending

consideration before the Court of the learned Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2017

referred by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel that since the issue is

pending before the Court of the learned Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Madanapalle, the learned Single Judge grossly

erred in directing the authorities to pay the entire amount

to the writ petitioners. It is also further submitted by the

learned counsel that the writ appellants herein also
                              4




instituted O.S.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for injunction

against the Land Acquistion Officer and others and sought

a direction to restrain the defendants from paying the

compensation and the said suit is pending.

     On the contrary, Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned

counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent Nos.5 to 8

herein contends that there is no error nor there exists any

infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and in the absence of the same, the invocation of

jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters

Patent is impermissible. It is also the submission of the

learned counsel that in the suit instituted by the writ

appellants, the claim is only to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents,

as such there is no justification on the part of the writ

appellants herein to assail the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

     Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

submits that having regard to the nature of controversy

and the objections raised by the writ appellants, the Land

Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Court of the
                                           5




Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and deposited

the total amount and the same came to be numbered as

L.A.O.P. No.15 of 2017 on the file of the said Court.

      The reality remains that the acquisition proceedings

in the present case came to be instituted under the

provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 as such in the considered

opinion of this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer went

wrong in depositing the amount in the Civil Court i.e., the

Court      of    the    learned     Principal          Senior    Civil     Judge,

Madanapalle, having regard to the provisions of Section 64

of the said Act. Section 64 of the Legislation reads as

follows:

                 "64.   Reference   to        Authority.--(1)    Any   person
      interested who has not accepted the award may, by
      written application to the Collector, require that the matter
      be referred by the Collector for the determination of the
      Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to
      the       measurement    of   the       land,   the   amount    of   the
      compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights
      of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and
      VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the
      persons interested:

                 Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of
      thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a
      reference to the appropriate Authority:
                                     6




            Provided further that where the Collector fails to
     make such reference within the period so specified, the
     applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be,
     requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to
     it within a period of thirty days.

            (2) The application shall state the grounds on which
     objection to the award is taken:

            Provided that every such application shall be made--
     -

(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of Collector's award;

(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire:

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso."

It is very much evident from a reading of the

aforesaid provisions of law that in the event of there being

any objection as per the measurement of the land, the

amount of compensation and the persons to whom the

said compensation is payable, such a matter is required to

be adjudicated by the authority constituted under the said

provisions of law.

In view the above legal position, the Land Acquisition

Officer ought to have made such deposit before the

competent authority under the provisions of Section 64 of

the Act. In order to have a quietus to the issue and as the

claim of the writ appellants is only to the extent of Ac.0.45