Singana Subba Reddy, vs Prl.Secy., Irrigation Dept., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 197 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

             WRIT PETTION NOs.27325 AND 11881 OF 2018

COMMON ORDER:


         W.P.No.27325 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:


     "To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos.

2 to 4 in passing Award No.1/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act."

W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

"To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the compensation even though 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation basing on the current Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) prevailing on the date of 4(1) Notification dated 01.10.2005 as per the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act."

Since the facts and issue involved in both the writ petitions

is one and the same, I find it expedient to decide both the matters

by common order.

For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.11881 of 2018 is taken

as leading case. The petitioners in W.P.No.11881 of 2018 were the

owners of different extents of land and structures thereon in Reach

No.II, Korivivandlapalli Village, Hamlet of Varikunta, Atloor

Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, which was submerged under the

backwaters of Somasila Project along with other structures and MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

land in the said village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act was published in District Gazette No.33 dated

01.10.2005. After following due procedure under Land Acquisition

Act Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 was passed by the

third respondent. Estimates were arrived by the Engineering

Department for the structures following the Standard Schedule

Rates (S.S.R) Rates of the year 2002-03. Award was passed as per

the said 2002-03 year S.S.R Rates and compensation was paid to

the petitioners.

Since the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette No.33 dated

01.10.2005, the S.S.R Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 has to

be adopted for the preparation of estimates and pass award for

payment of compensation. No such procedure was followed in

passing the Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 and payment

of compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for

the compensation at the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R)

prevailing on the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4(1)

of Land Acquisition Act dated 01.10.2005. The Government of

Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Rt.No.484 Irrigation & C.A.D (Projects

Wing/T.G.P.II/A.2) Department dated 26.06.2003 clearly stated

that the valuation of the structures should be done as per current

S.S.R Rates. According to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act,

compensation has to be paid on the basis of the current Standard

Schedule Rates (S.S.R) on the date of Section 4(1) of Land

Acquisition Act Notification dated 01.10.2005. Despite the

representation dated 19.03.2018 submitted by the petitioners to MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating all the facts and Respondent Nos. 2

to 4 did not consider the same. The action of Respondent Nos. 2 to

4 in passing Award No.2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 on the basis

of 2002-03 Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) and paying the

compensation even though Notification under Section 4(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act was issued on 01.10.2005 and such action is

illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the petitioners in both the writ

petitions approached this Court claiming the relief stated above.

Respondent No.3 - Special Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa, filed counter

affidavit, denying material allegations, while admitting passing of

Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, determination of

compensation based on S.S.R Rates of 2002-03, but enhancing the

same @ 25% though notification was in the year 2002-03 Standard

Schedule Rates (S.S.R).

The specific contentions of Respondent No.3 are as

follows:

a) The present writ petition is filed after more than 10 years

from the date of passing of Award dated 31.07.2006 for

enhancement of Compensation under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and the petitioners are not entitled to

claim any relief on the ground of delay and latches, invoking

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

b) While admitting about issue of Notification under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, it is specifically contended MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

that the Awards were passed after negotiations with the land

loosers and interested persons, consent awards were passed.

c) The Government in G.O.Rt.No.553 I&CAD (TGP-II)

Department dated 02.08.2002 constituted an Empowered

Committee with District Collector, Kadapa as the Chairman

and the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa is the member

convenor and the Superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga

Project, Circle, Kadapa as member to resolve all the issues

relating to the acquisition of lands and structures relating to

Somasila Project.

d) The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.393 I&CAD (TGP-II) dated

16.05.2003 have constituted a cabinet sub-committee

consisting of Minister for Finance, Minister for Revenue and

Minister for Major and Medium Irrigation to suggest the

measures to resolve the issues relating to pending Land

Acquisition and payment of compensation through consent

awards.

e) The cabinet sub-committee vide G.O.Rt.No.484 I & CAD

(TGP-II) dated 26.06.2003 has recommended the District

Collector and the Empowered Committee Members to

complete the balance of Land Acquisition work in a

transparent way to the knowledge of everyone concerned and

permitted the District Collector, Kadapa to negotiate with the

village committee and to arrive at a reasonable

enhancement, passing consent awards. The cabinet sub-

committee recommended the structures which need to be

compensated and missed in the current DN should be MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

covered through a supplementary notification and the

structures that have come up due to efflux of time and with

an objective of improving the standards of living there need

not be precluded from the current notification, unless and

otherwise, the District Empowered Committee has strong

reasons to exclude them.

f) The District Collector & Chairman Empowered Committee,

Kadapa vide Rc.No.GS/3606/02, dated: 14.07.2003

constituted Teams comprising The Executive Director,

District Schedule Caste Service Coop Society Limited,

Kadapa, Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur and Assistant

Executive Engineer, GNSS Sub Division-I, Tirupathi.

g) The team has enumerated all the existing structures and

submitted Enumeration list to the District Empowered

Committee. The Government Vide G.O.Rt.No. 802 I & CAD

(PW.TGP-11) Dept., dated 30.10.2003, have issued orders

appointing the Joint Collector, Ananthapur District as

Special Officer. He has enumerated and enquired all the

structures of Korivivandlapalli H/o Varikunta and

categorized the structures and submitted the categorization

proposals to the District Empowered Committee on

20.03.2006. The same has been approved by the District

Empowered Committee. The Special Officer have categorized,

the structures in to I to V as under.

1. Statement-l: (60) Structures already notified in D.N. and genuine

2. Statement-11: (23) Genuine to the extent of the actual area mentioned at 7b.

MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

3. Statement-111: (45) The structures may be treated as genuine to the extent of notified area (Col.7a (DN & DD). Additionals has mentioned as Col.7C (difference) may be allowed depreciation equivalent to other benefits.

4. Statement-IV: The structures may be allowed compensation with 25% depreciation.

5. Statement-V: (27+3) All structures are genuine. The structures are not notified in DN & DD.

6. Statement V (5): All structures are genuine may be allowed. Compensation at 25% depreciation. The structures are notified in the DN&DD.

The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa directed to prepare

Addendum and Amendment for the Statement II to VI as

approved by the District Empowered Committee and sent to

publication. The same was approved by the Special Collector,

GNSS, Kadapa and got published. No objections were

received.

h) The District Collector, Kadapa & Chairman District

Empowered Committee have accorded permission from the

Government to notify the left over Genuine structures and

ordered to pass the consent award by offering 16%, 25%

increase over the estimated value arrived at the Engineering

Department for structures adopting the 2002-03-year SSR

rates. The model estimates for the structures were given by

the Engineering Department on the basis of plinth area and

nature of structures as per the SSR rates of 2002-03. The

District Empowered Committee has approved the modal

estimates given by the Engineering Department. The

Preliminary Variation Statement has been prepared on the

basis of the Statements, proposals of the Special Officer MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

(Joint Collector), Ananthapur and model estimates prepared

by the Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Division-l,

Somasila and submitted to the District Empowered

Committee for approval. Those proposals were scrutinized by

the Special Collector(LA), GNSS, Kadapa and the same was

approved by the District Empowered Committee. The Award

enquiry under Section 11 of the L.A. Act was conducted in

Korivivandlapalli H/O Varikunta Village duly informing to

the land losers and interested persons. No objections were

received at the time of award enquiry.

i) No objections were received against valuation statements

prepared by the Engineering Department on the on the basis

of plinth area recommended by the Special Officer and type

of structures. The Engineering Department who are technical

authority have inspected the structures covered by this

award and formed the valuation (Model Estimates) of the

structures. The Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa has

inspected the structures along with Special Deputy Collector,

TGP. Until Kadapa with reference to the valuation, estimates

furnished by the Engineering Department. The Preliminary

Valuation prepared and 25% depreciation in statement III to

V as advised by the District Empowered Committee to

"additions as mentioned in Col.7 (C) may be allowed

depreciation equal to other benefits" has given by the Special

Officer. The Preliminary Valuation statement has been

scrutinized by the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa and the

same was approved by the District Empowered Committee.

MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

The Petitioners also appeared before the LAO for award

enquiry. They have accepted for the measurements fixed to

the above structures and valuation furnished by the

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Somasila Project

Division-IV, Atmakur Mandal of Nellore District. No rival

claims or objections were filed. After negotiations the

awardees entered into an agreement duly engrossed on

Rs. 10/- stamp paper in Form IV signed declaring that

he/she will not claim for payment of higher compensation

U/s 18 and U/s 28-A of L.A. Act in any court of law or in any

other Forum and shall abide by Consent Award made by the

Land Acquisition Officer U/s 11(2) read with section 31(2) of

L.A. Act. They agreed for the structures which are included

in statement I to VI and to receive compensation as fixed by

the Land Acquisition Officer. As such Consent Award was

passed, consequently the petitioners are not entitled to any

relief once Consent Award was passed. It is submitted that

the District Collector & Chairman has accorded permission

to notify the left over Genuine structures and ordered to pass

the consent award by offering 16%,25% increase over the

estimated value arrived at the Engineering Department for

structures following the 2002-03 year SSR Rates as

recommended in the District Negotiation Committee

Meetings Held on 20.03.2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802,

dated 30.10.2003. The Model Estimates for the structures

were given. The Petitioners now requested for modification of

compensation for structure estimated by the Engineering MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Department on the basis of plinth area and nature of

structures as per the SSR rates 2002-03 as recommended in

the District Negotiation Committee Meeting held on

20.07.2003 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003

Irrigation and CAD (Projects Wing TGP-11) Department.

j) It is submitted that this village is village is one among the list

of 23 villages for which District Empowered Committee was

appointed under Chairman Ship of District Collector, Kadapa

in G.O.Ms.No.802, I & CAD (PW.T.G.P.-II) Department dated

30.10.2003, it is very clear that the SSR rates to be adopted

shall be 2002-03. Hence, request for considering current

SSR does not arise. Finally the District Empowered

Committee after holding a meeting accorded permission and

ordered to pass Consent Award by offering 16%, 25%

increase over the estimated value arrived by the Engineering

Department for structures by following 2002-03 year SSR

rates. It is submitted that the Government authorized the

District Empowered Committee to take a decision in the

matters and accordingly the District Empowered Committee

offered package with enhancement of 25%, over and above

the Market value of the structures with SSR rates 2002-03.

The LAO informed the same to the villagers by holding

Gramasabha and after executing consent affidavit in Form-

IV, award has been passed and the amount of compensation

was already disbursed. The petitioners received

compensation under Consent Award passed under Section

11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 31(2).

MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

k) It is submitted that, it is incorrect that the claimant

protested at the time of receiving the amount and that the

LAO rightly rejected the claims to pay the differential amount

of compensation SSR rates 2005-06 as Consent Award was

already passed Under Section 11 (2) read with 31 (2) of the

Land Acquisition Act and that the petitioners are not entitled

to claim the SSR rates of 2005-06. The SSR rates of 2002-

03 was adopted as per Go.Rt.No.802, dt.30.10.2003 since

the consent Award was passed in Award No.3/2006-07 dt

31.07.2006 for payment of compensation for the structures

in Korivivandlapalli H/O Varikunta (V), Atloor (M) as

recommended by the District Empowered Committee, ally

obtaining consent of the Awardees by obtaining consent

Affidavits in Form-IV.

The steps and procedure as instructed by the Government

Vide Memo No.139159/TGP-11/2003, dated 24.11.2003 and some

of the instructions are MGP-11/2003, dt. 24.11.2005 are as

follows:

(3.4) After completing verification and over check the Special Officers should ensure that the concerned Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Publishes the list of such structures proposed to be notified as addendum/ supplementary notification in the village and may wait for a period of one week to enable the petitioners to verify the particulars of structures, after announcing by way of tom-tom in the villages inviting objections.

(3.5) The Special Officers shall ensure that the valuation of these structures is as per current S.S.R. rates i.e., 2002-03, duly prepared by the Officials of Engineering Department concerned and they should also ensure that the Preliminary Valuation Statement (PV) is correctly prepared by the Land Acquisition Officers concerned and submitted to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project for approval. Afterwards, the Land Acquisition Officers should also conduct award enquiry MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

under Section 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3.6) Thereafter, the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore shall arrange to submit necessary proposals to the District Collector, Kadapa for placing the matter before the District Negotiations Committee for further action strictly as per the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (District Level Negotiations Committee) Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1050. Revenue (LA) Department, dated 17-10-1992 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.594, Revenue (L.A), Department dated 10.08.1998 and as per the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3.7) The District Collector, is permitted to negotiate with the owners of the structures/lands and arrive at suitable enhancement up to a maximum of 25% to facilitate passing of consent award.

(3.8) The entire negotiations exercises is to be conducted in a transparent way to the knowledge of everyone concerned.

(3.9) While fixing me basic rate and while negotiating the enhancement for consent ward the District Negotiations Committee may offer different values/levels of enhancmene taking into consideration the nature and circumstances relating to the structure in question.

(3.10) The Special Officers shall ensure that the awardees lists together with the particulars of structures and the compensation payable and publicized in the Gram Sabhas. (3.11) The cheques shall be issued to the awardees concerned in the Gram Sabhas only.

(3.12) The Special Officers concerned shall be present in all the Gram Sabhas and supervise the entire process. (3.13) The amount awarded by the Negotiations Committee with the consent the awardees shall be paid within a period of four weeks after passing award.

(3.14) If any of the petitioners or other persons, whose lands and structure proposed to be acquired, are not willing to accept consent award necessary steps under the Land Acquisition Act shall be taken. Hence there is no chance to either missing of structures or variations in the plinth area of the structures.

It is specifically contended that the SSR Rates are

adopted as per the instructions of the Government vide Memo

No.139159/TGP-11/2003, dt.24.11.2003, and with knowledge

and consent of the village committee and awards were passed

duly obtaining their consent taking on Form-IV on the Non MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Judicial Bond worth Rs.10/- and cheques were also

distributed in the village Grama Sabhas.

It is further contended that, there is all over transparency in

passing of award strictly in terms of Land Acquisition Act with the

consent of the awardees of Korivivandlapalli with the SSR Rates

2002-2003, No objections were raised on this issue during this 11

years 8 months as these are consent awards. Now these petitions

are filing with malicious intention and misleading the Court and

finally requested to dismiss the writ petitions.

During hearing, Sri Ch.C. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in both the writ

petitions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed

by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.37300 of 2012 dated

08.002.2017, where, the learned single Judge directed the

respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005-

2006 and to pay differential amount of ex-gratia at SSR Rates

prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006,

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of

the order.

It is also contended that, when a Coordinate Bench has

taken a decision on the similar issue relating to same Award, the

other Coordinate Bench is bound to follow the judgment and

therefore, a direction is sought in terms of the order in both the

writ petitions.

MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that,

delay is not a ground in Land Acquisition matters and in support

of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C1. On

the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, he

requested to issue similar direction as issued in W.P.No.37300 of

2012 dated 08.002.2017.

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition raised a specific contention that, when the Awards are

passed obtaining consent i.e. consent Awards, the petitioners are

not entitled to claim enhancement of compensation while placing

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar2. On the strength

of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that, since the

Awards are consent Awards, the petitioners are not entitled to

maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and make a request to the Civil Court under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material on

record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

"Whether Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent are Consent Awards? If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to question the

2013 (2) ALD 7 (SC)

2005 Law Suit (SC) 570 MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

adequacy of compensation on any of the grounds and whether a direction as claimed by the petitioners be issued by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?"

P O I N T:

The petitioners did not dispute Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07

dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent. The petitioners

questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded for the

structures based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03,

though the notification was issued and published on 01.10.2005

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The third

respondent did not deny passing of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07

dated 31.07.2006, date of issue of Notification i.e. 01.10.2005

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; but contended that

the Award is consent Award and value of the structures is fixed on

the basis of Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03 with

enhancement of 25% over the Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of

2002-03 as agreed by the petito0ners and other land losers. At the

same time, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are

consent awards. If so, what are the rights of the

claimants/petitioners herein to claim enhancement of

compensation to the structures based on Standard Schedule Rates

(S.S.R) of 2005-06, is to be examined.

In view of the specific contention raised by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, it is necessary

to advert to the contents of Awards to find out whether the Awards

are Consent Awards or not.

MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

A bare look at the content of Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07

dated 31.07.2006, while awarding compensation to each of the

owner of both land or land loser and structures, a specific mention

is made about Consent Award and it is extracted hereunder:

"The valuation given by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Somasila Project, Division-IV, Atmakur, Nellore District have been adopted for the structures. It is consent award. The awardee entered into an agreement duly signed in Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV declaring that he/she will not claim for payment of higher compensation u/s 18 and u/s 28(2) of L.A. Act in any court to flaw or in any other forum and shall abide by Consent Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11(2) read with Section 31*(2) of L.A. Act. Apart from the package deal he/she agreed to abide any other terms and conditions as per agreement deal entered with. He/she agreed for the structures which are put in under statement I to VI and to receive compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the provision

which enables the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an Award.

According to Section 11(2), if at any stage of the proceedings, the

Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who

appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be

included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by

rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without

making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of

such agreement. Thus, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 permits

passing of Consent Award based on the agreement. Here, the land

owners allegedly executed agreement on Rs.10/- stamp paper in

Form IV. Copies of affidavits are filed along with counter affidavit.

Therefore, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are only

"Consent Awards". One of the contentions raised by the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is that, the

compensation was awarded for structures based on Standard MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Schedule Rates of 2002-03 + 25% enhancement over the Standard

Schedule Rates of 2002-03 in terms of the agreement of Award.

Form-IV is placed on record in the counter affidavit filed by the

third respondent to establish that it is a consent award. The

agreement in Form-IV at Page No.61 is extracted hereunder for

better appreciation of the case and it is as follows:

FORM-IV Affidavit to be executed by the interested persons before the Land Acquisition Officer under Rs.10 Non-Judicial Stamp Paper

I, Sri Singara Subga Reddy, s/o Pedda Obul Reddy owner/owners of the land/structure in S.No.405/2/SPR No.1,13,14,24 in Reach No.II of Korivivandlapalli Village, ATloor Mandla, Kadapa District, hereby agree for the acquisition of my/our land/structure by the Collector (Land Acquisition)/Spl. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition)/Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) for the purpose of foreshore submersion under Somasila Project.

I/We solemnly affirm that I/We/am/are the absolute owner/owners of the land/structure mentioned above and the land/structure is not encumbered. The compensation payable for this land/structure may be paid to me/may be paid to.

I/We am/are agreeable to the payment of compensation at the rate of ...... per acre/per sq.metre which was offered by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Negotiation Committee. I/We am/are also agreeable for payment of compensation for the trees, the structures in the land proposed for acquisition which are valued at Rs..... by the Land Acquisiton Officer/by the Negotiation committee in consultation with the Technical Officers. I/We, am/are agreeable to accept Rs.8,76,344/- being the total compensation payable towards my/our share as per the package deal arrived at through settlement by Negotiation Committee.

I, we hereby declare that I/We will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other forum and shall abide by the Consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11(2) read with Second Proviso under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act.

Apart from the package deal I/We agree to abide by other terms and conditions as per the agreement deed entered into by me/us with Land Acquisition Officer in the present of the Negotiation Committee.

In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners in the

Consent Awards that they will not claim for payment of higher

compensation in any Court of law or in any other Forum and shall

abide by the consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

under Section 11(2) read with second proviso under Section 31(2)

of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners/land holders are

disentitled to claim compensation at enhanced rate based on

Standard Schedule Rates 2005-06 for the structures. Accordingly, I

hold that, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006 are

Consent Awards.

When the Awards are consent awards, the rights of the

parties are determined by the terms of awards and agreement

itself. As per the terms of Awards, the petitioners agreed not to

claim enhancement of compensation before any court of law or any

other Forum and shall abide by the consent Award, thereby, the

Awards are Consent Awards, in view of execution of Agreement in

Form-IV.

Learned counsel for the petiitoners Sri Ch.C. Krishna Reddy

would submit that a similar issue came up before High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P.NO.37300 of 2012. In the facts of the

above judgment, the structures of the petitioners therein were

acquired by the respondents due to submergence under Somasila

Project by paying ex-gratia based on SSR rates of 2001 instead of

SSR rates payable for 2005 - 2006.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the above writ

petition filed W.P.No.120 of 2007 seeking directions to the

respondents to pay the differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR

rates of 2005-2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of on

27.8.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioners. The 2nd respondent after taking considerable time MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

passed orders on 14.2.2012 by issuing LOC for differential amount

of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-06. When the cheques were

not issued to the petitioners within the time fixed by the Accounts

Officer, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6085 of 2012. The Court

passed interim orders to issue cheques on or before 31.3.2012.

When the said interim order was not implemented, the petitioners

filed contempt case. The Court disposed of both the cases viz., writ

petition and contempt case directing the respondents herein to

pass fresh orders as to the right of the petitioners ex gratia to be

paid out on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates, that prevail on

the date on which the possession premises is taken over.

W.P.No.37300 of 2012 was disposed of on 08.002.2017, directing

the respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005-

2006 and to pay differential amount of ex-gratia at SSR Rates

prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006,

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of

the order.

No doubt, the learned single Judge held in favour of the

petitioner therein. But, the question as to maintainability of claim

for payment of compensation at enhanced rate or maintainability

of the writ petition was not raised in the said writ petition and the

order was passed without touching the right of the claimant to

claim enhanced rate of compensation on any ground. Therefore,

the principle laid down in the above judgment to limited extent is

binding. But, so far as the right of the claimant to claim MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

compensation based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of 2005-

06 is to be decided by this Court, in view of the specific contention

urged before this Court by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Land Acquisition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition,

contends that the claimants have no right to claim compensation

at enhanced rates by applying Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R)

2005-06 on two grounds:

a) The first ground is that, the Award for structures is passed

on purely Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) 2002-03.

b) The second ground is that, when Consent Awards are

passed, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief

based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State

of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred

supra)

In State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar

(referred supra), the Apex Court relied on the judgments of State

of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai3 and Ishwarlal Premchand

Shah v. State of Gujarat4.

In State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai (referred supra),

the Court held that, the right and entitlement to seek reference

would, therefore, arise when amount of compensation was received

under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the

owner of non-acceptance of the award. Section 11(2) opens with a

(1995) 5 SCC 746

(1996) 4 SCC 174 MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1)" and provides that "if at any stage of the proceedings,

the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land

who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to

be included in the award of the collector in the form prescribed by

rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without

making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of

such agreement. By virtue of sub-section (4), "notwithstanding

anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement

made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under

that Act". The award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the

agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the

necessity of reference under Section 18.

In Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat

(referred supra), the Court reiterated the same principle and held

as follows:

"It is true that on determination of compensation under sub-section (1) for the land acquired, Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Equally, Parliament having taken notice of the inordinate delay in making the award by the Land Acquisition Officer from the date of notification published under Section 4(1) till passing the award under Section 11, to offset the price pegged during the interregnum, Section 23(1-A) was introduced to award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value, in addition to the market value of the land, for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Under Section 28, interest was directed to be paid on the excess compensation at the rate specified therein from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of deposit into court of such excess compensation. These three components are in addition to the compensation determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They intended to operate in different perspectives. One for compulsory acquisition, the other for the delay on MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award and the third one for deprivation of the enjoyment of the land from the date of taking possession till determination of the compensation. The three components are in addition to the determination of market value under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They are not integral to determination of compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 23 but in addition to, for the circumstances enumerated hereinbefore. In a private sale between a willing vendor and a willing vendee, parties would arrive at consensus to pay and receive consolidated consideration which would form the market value of the land conveyed to the vendee. For public purpose, compulsory acquisition under the Act gives absolute title under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It would, therefore, be open to the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2), without the necessity to determine compensation under Section 23(1) and would receive market value at the rates incorporated in the contract signed under Section 11(2) in which event the award need not be in Form 14"

In the facts of the judgment in Assam Railways & Trading

Co. Ltd. vs. The Collector of Lakhimpur and Another5, placed

reliance is not applicable to the fact of the present case. Therein

negotiations had taken place between the parties whereupon the

Railway Administration prepared to pay Rs.2500/- per bigha

towards the sale price of the land but the transaction was not

completed, having regard to the fact that under the State Railway

Rules, land from private parties could be acquired only by taking

recourse to acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, in the land

acquisition proceedings, an award was made by the Land

Acquisition Collector allowing compensation at the rate of

Rs.1000/- per bigha. It is in that situation, the negotiation between

the parties was highlighted stating that although the same did not

fructify into a binding contract, there was at least a "gentleman's

(1976) 3 SCC 24 MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

agreement" regarding the price which indicated what a willing

purchaser was ready to pay for the land. In the factual backdrop of

that case the Apex Court observed as follows:

"Assuming this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land..."

In view of the principle laid down in the above judgments,

when an Award is passed by consent, a right of a landholder to

obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not

accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in

him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An

agreement between the parties as regard the value of the hands

acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such

agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set-aside

in an appropriate proceeding by a Court of law having jurisdiction

the petitioners have no right to claim compensation more than the

amount awarded for the structures.

Even otherwise, the claim of these petitioners in the writ

petitions is to award compensation adopting Standard Schedule

Rates of 2005-06, as the awards were passed based on Standard

Schedule Rates 2002-03. Therefore, in a way, it is a claim for

enhancement of compensation which would fall within Section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Instead of raising a protest on

the amount awarded as compensation for the structures covered

by Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated 31.07.2006, the petitioners

adopted a different procedure circumventing the law and such MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

recourse is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Apex

Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar

(referred supra). Therefore, I am of the considered view that the

petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on

enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-

06 by applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of

Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra).

Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioners and in favour

of the respondents.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances, the

respondents could establish that Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07 dated

31.07.2006 are consent awards and that the compensation for the

structures was assessed based on Standard Schedule Rates 2002-

03, for enhancement of 25% over it, though notification was

published on 01.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act. Since the petitioners herein/land owners agreed to

receive the same, while agreeing not to make any claim either in

any Court of law or before any authority, such agreement is

binding on these petitioners, thereby, the petitioners are not

entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of Standard

Schedule Rates of 2005-2006. Consequently, it is difficult to issue

a direction as claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions and

the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that these

petitioners failed to establish that, Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07

dated 31.07.2006 are passed under Section 11(1) but not under MSM,J WP Nos.27325 & 11881_2018

Section 11(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not deny

execution of agreement in Form-V prescribed under the Rules. The

petitioners not even denied the consent Award Nos.1 & 2/2006-07

dated 31.07.2006 passed by the third respondent, which are filed

along with the writ petitions; thereby, no merit lies in the

contentions of these petitioners.

In the result, writ petitions are dismissed, but however

without costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:18.01.2022

SP