K.Narsamma 158 Others vs The Govt Of A.P Rep.By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7319 AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

             WRIT PETITION No.10679 OF 2011


ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri Y.Venkatasatyam, learned counsel

for the Writ Petitioners and Sri C.Vamsi Krishna, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

2. The prayer sought in the Writ Petition has been

amended by Order dated 19.04.2021 passed by this Hon‟ble

Court. The amended prayer made in the Writ Petition is as

follows:

"it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of the writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the inaction of the respondents in re-determing the compensation payable to the petitioners in the applications submitted by them under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of the Judgment in LAOP No.54 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District as enhanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10827 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to re-determine the compensation

to the Writ Petitioners in terms of the Judgment in a LAOP No.54 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District as enhanced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10827 of 2018, dated 27.09.2018 and pay the same to the Writ Petitioners with all statutory benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case"

3. The prayer was amended on account of the

subsequent events that have taken place in the present

proceedings, which will also be adverted to hereunder. The

Writ Petitioners, 153 in number have approached this Court

seeking suitable directions for considering their Applications

for enhancement of compensation under Section 28-A of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short „the Act‟).

4. Facts are as under:

(i) The Respondents issued Section 4(1) Notification on

31.07.1992 and the Award was passed on 05.09.1995 bearing

Award No.1/95-96. Some of the Claimants sought reference

under Section 18 of the Act. The same was referred to the

Civil Court (Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet). The Senior Civil

Judge, Rajampet in L.A.O.P.No.54 of 1999, passed a final

Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2000. It is pertinent to

state that the Section 4(1) Notification is common to the

Claimants (in L.A.O.P.No.54/1999) and the instant Writ

Petitioners.

(ii) Thereafter, the Claimants in L.A.O.P.No.54 of 1999

have approached this Court by way of (Appeal) A.S.No.3833 of

2003. This Appeal was disposed of with an enhancement of

compensation over and above what was awarded by the

Reference Court. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel

submitted that the Claimants have filed a Review Petition

seeking review of Judgment in A.S.No.3833 of 2003 with a

contention that they are entitled for further enhancement.

On consideration of merits, the Review Petition filed by the

Claimants was allowed by this Court. This Court further

enhanced the compensation by Order dated 17.08.2016.

(iii) Some of the Claimants, having not been satisfied

with the enhancement by the Appellate Court as well as the

Reviewing Court have approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

of India by way of S.L.P.No.10827 of 2018 and batch. On

consideration of the matter on merits, the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court granted Leave in the matter, converted the Special

Leave Petitions into regular Civil Appeals and disposed of the

Civil Appeals bearing No.10044 of 2018 and batch with the

following directions:

"(i) The appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per Pomegranate Tree along with all statutory benefits.

(ii) However, they shall not be entitled for statutory benefits for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court"

(iv) While the proceedings initiated by the Claimants

were being proceeded on one hand, the present Writ

Petitioners, having come to know in the month of August,

2000 that the Reference Court enhanced the compensation

over and above the compensation rendered in the Award, have

applied for Certified Copy of Judgment and Decree in

L.A.O.P.No.54 of 1999 rendered by the Senior Civil Judge,

Rajampet. Certified Copy of the Decree and Judgment were

made ready on 20.11.2000. Thereafter, the present Writ

Petitioners have submitted an Application for enhancement of

compensation as fixed in the Judgment of the Reference

Court as they are entitled do so under Section 28-A of the Act.

Submission of Application filed by the Writ Petitioners under

Section 28-A of the Act is within the statutory limitation

period.

(v) As the matter stood thus, the Authorities under the

Land Acquisition Proceedings have kept the Applications that

were submitted by the Writ Petitioners pending, without

rendering any decision. The Writ Petitioners were not made

aware by the Land Acquisition Authorities that the Claimants

carried the matter in Appeal, and thereafter filed Review; and

not being satisfied with the enhancement in Appeal and

further enhancement in the Review, the Claimants have

approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by way of

S.L.P.No.10827 of 2018 and batch. Being unaware of these

proceedings being carried in Appeal, Review and S.L.P. by the

Claimants, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court

by way of present Writ Petition alleging inaction on the part of

the Land Acquisition Authorities and further seeking a

direction for disposing of pending Applications filed under

Section 28-A of the Act.

(vi) In W.P.M.P.No.13131 of 2011 this Court, while

issuing notice in the said Application, directed the

Respondents to consider the Petitioners‟ Applications dated

08.01.2001 for redetermination of the compensation under

Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act and pass appropriate

Orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the

date of receipt of this Order. This Interim Direction of this

Court was not complied, perhaps, due to the fact that the

issue of the quantum of compensation had not attained

finality due to pendency of litigation before various judicial

fora.

(vii) The present Writ Petitioners, who are mostly

farmers and illiterates, having belatedly gained knowledge

about the various enhancements done at various Judicial

Fora, have moved an Application bearing I.A.No.1 of 2018 in

W.P.No.10679 of 2011 before this Court for the purpose of

placing on record the subsequent events and consequently

seeking amendment of the Prayer. By Order dated

19.04.2021, the said I.A. came to be allowed granting liberty

to the Writ Petitioners for amending the Prayer. The amended

Prayer is extracted supra.

5. Therefore, the short question that fall for

consideration is:

Whether the Writ Petitioners are entitled for compensation under Section 28-A of the Act as fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as fixed in Civil Appeal No.10044 of 2018 and batch?

6. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Writ Petitioners sustained the proposition that the

compensation should be calculated as per the last

determination that attained finality; and that, in the instant

case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has rendered the finality by

enhancing the compensation. He has also placed on record

several Judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court by

way of Memo dated 22.12.2021. The following Judgments of

the Hon‟ble Apex Court have been cited by him:

(i) Union of India vs. Munshi Ram (Dead) by LRs.

And others ((2006) 4 SCC 538) (paragraph Nos.7 to 11), which is as under:

"7. We are of the view that the Union of India is right in its submission that the amount payable under Section 28-A of the Act is the amount which is finally payable by way of compensation to the owners of the land who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said provision seeks to confer the benefit of enhanced

compensation even on those owners who did not seek a reference under Section 18. It cannot be that those who secure a certain benefit by reason of others getting such benefit should retain that benefit, even though the others on the basis of whose claim compensation was enhanced are deprived of the enhanced compensation to an extent. This would be rather inequitable and unfair.

Moreover, even if it be that the compensation payable to claimants who have applied under Section 28-A of the Act, is the enhanced compensation decreed by the Reference Court, we must understand the decree to mean the decree of the Reference Court as modified in appeal by the higher courts. Otherwise, an incongruous position may emerge that a person who did not challenge the award of the Collector and did not claim a reference under Section 18 of the Act would get a higher compensation than one who challenged the award of the Collector and claimed a reference, but in whose case a higher compensation determined by the Reference Court was subsequently reduced by the superior court. There can be no dispute that those claiming higher compensation and claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act are bound by the decree as modified by the superior court in appeal. The principle of restitution must apply to them. For the same reason, the same consequence must visit others who have been given the benefit of enhanced compensation pursuant to the decree passed in reference proceeding on the application of others.

8. It was contended before us that after the order of redetermination was passed, the Union of India could have challenged this order, and since it failed to do so, it lost its right to challenge that order. The submission overlooks the basic plea of the Union of India that at the stage when the order of redetermination was

passed under Section 28-A of the Act that order was fully justified and any further redetermination could be claimed only if there was variation of the decree and the amount awarded by way of compensation was reduced. In the instant case, that happened in the year 1997, and therefore, in one sense it was indeed premature for the Union of India to challenge the redetermination under Section 28-A in the year 1995, much before the decree was actually modified.

9. We hold that under Section 28-A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In case of reduction of compensation by the superior courts, the applicants under Section 28-A may be directed to refund the excess amount received by them in the light of reduced compensation finally awarded.

10. We are informed that none of the claimants have yet been paid in accordance with the order of redetermination under Section 28-A or thereafter.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are allowed and a direction is made to the Collector under the Act to redetermine the compensation payable to the respondents in accordance with the compensation awarded by the judgment and decree of this Court dated 29-4-1997 [(1997) 6 SCC 59] and pay the same to the claimants within a period of three months from today".

(ii) Bharat Singh and others vs. State of Maharastra : AIR 2017 (SC) 5741;

(iii) Ram Singh Bhai (Ram Sangh Bhai) Jeeram Bhai vs. State of Gujrat (Civil Appeal No.4885 of 2018): AIR 2018 SC 2629.

7. The citations have been relied upon to state that

the Hon‟ble Apex Court has interpreted the purport of Section

28-A to mean that the compensation that is determine and

attained finality (at whatever stage) shall be taken into

account by the Authorities while considering the grant of

compensation under Section 28-A of the Act.

8. The Writ Petitioners have approached this Court

on account of the ignorance of fact that the Authorities could

not consider their Applications in view of the pending Appeal

and thereafter the Review which was later carried by the

Claimants to the Hon‟ble Apex Court by way of S.L.P.

9. Sri C. Vamsi Krishna, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the

Writ Petition, per se, is not maintainable inasmuch as the

reason under which the Authorities could not consider the

Applications of the Writ Petitioners is on account of the

pendency of the Appellate Proceedings, thereafter the Review

Proceeding and then before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the

proceeding of the Special Leave to Appeal. However, as

regards the legal propositions and binding precedents as

settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, he fairly concedes to the

same.

10. In any case, this Court opines that the approach of

the Writ Petitioners by way of the present Writ Petition has

not caused any disadvantage or prejudice to the Official

Respondents.

11. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in

order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition with a

direction to the Authorities to consider the Applications

submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 08.01.2001 in the

light of the settled legal position as enunciated by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court. The Applications shall be disposed of within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of this

Order. It is to be borne in mind that the Writ Petitioners are

poor and illiterate persons, who had to wait for a period of 21

years on account of the pendency of this cause at various

stages.

12. Though, this delay cannot be attributed to the

Official Respondents and that it is beyond their control in

view of the pending legal proceedings at various stages, the

Authorities would do well in keeping in mind the delicate

social and economic position of the Writ Petitioners while

expeditiously disposing of the Applications as above directed.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with

the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed

of in terms of this order.

________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)

Dt: 23.09.2022.

Note: Issue C.C. by 27.09.2022.

B/o.

SDP

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 10679 OF 2011

23.09.2022

Note: Issue C.C. by 27.09.2022.

B/o.

SDP