Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rapuru Penchalaiah Died, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.2694 OF 2021
Rapuru Penchalaiah (died) rep. by his LR
daughter Uddiboina Subbalakshmumma,
W/ Subba Reddy, Age : 56 years, Occ:
Housewife, Teluguraipuram Village,
Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District
and 107 others.
... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented
by its Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
and two others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP for Land Acquisition
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...issue an appropriate writ order or direction more
particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not increasing
the amount for Rs.18,000/- per one acre as per the
judgment in L.A.O.P.No.118/1982 dated 27.09.1988 in
the Re-determination Award No.9/28A/2007-2008,
dated 02.02.2008 and in the P.V. Proposals dated
10.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal,
without jurisdiction and also in violation of the
procedure u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and
SRS J
consequently direct the respondents to pay the
compensation to the petitioners @ Rs.18,000/- for one
acre as per the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.118/1982 and
batch dated 27.09.1988 with all statutory benefits ..."
2. Averments in affidavit, in brief, are that:
(a) Petitioners 108 in number filed the above writ
petition. One Boyyala Guravaiah deposed the affidavit.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (herein after referred to as „the Act‟) was published in
Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 22.12.1977. After following
the procedure, Award No.12/80-81, dated 29.12.1980, was
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation of Rs.7,800/- per acre in
respect of wet land and Rs.4,600/- per acre in respect of dry
land. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded solatium at
15%. Some of the claimants received the compensation
amount, under protest, sought for reference under Section 18
of the Act. Reference was made and the same was numbered
as O.P.No.118 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Court,
Kadapa. Reference Court by order dated 27.09.1988,
enhanced the market value and also granted other statutory
benefits i.e. solatium @ 30%, additional market value @ 12%,
SRS J
interest @ 9% for the 1st year from the date of award and 15%
afterwards.
(b) After the order of reference court, petitioners made
application under Section 28-A of the Act to respondent No.3.
Since, the respondent No.3 is not acting upon the
applications made by the petitioners, petitioners filed
W.P.No.3415 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed on
18.03.2009, directing to pay compensation, as decided by the
Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated
27.09.1988.
(c) Respondent No.3 prepared the statement showing
P.V. proposals relating to re-determination amount of
compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, as per the order
passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and
batch, dated 27.09.1988 and passed award No.9/28A/2007-
2008, dated 02.02.2008. Respondent No.3 while passing
award under Section 28-A of the Act, has not redetermined
the amount as per the judgment L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and
batch, dated 27.09.1988. Aggrieved by the said action,
petitioners filed the above writ petition.
SRS J
3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 & 3. It was contended inter-alia that:
(a) Vakamada Village of Gopavaram Mandal, YSR
Kadapa District is one among the submerged villages, under
the foreshore waters of Somasila project. Acquisition
Department furnished particulars to acquire land of an extent
of Ac.300.24 cents pertaining to Reach No.XIV of Vakamada
Village, Erstwhile Sidhout Taluk, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR
Kadapa District. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
was approved and published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette
dated 22.12.1977. After following the procedure, Award
No.12/1980-81, dated 29.12.1980 was passed. All the
awardees received compensation. Some of the awardees filed
applications under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the
applications were referred to the Civil Court under Section 18
of the Act, for adjudication. Reference Court enhanced the
compensation by judgment dated 27.09.1988.
(b) The Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
Officer filed appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
against the order passed by the reference Court in
L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988. The
SRS J
said appeal was dismissed. One R.Penchalaiah and 153
others of Kaluvai Village, Reach No.XIV filed applications
under Section 28-A of the Act, through their Advocate dated
03.01.1989, before the Land Acquisition Officer on
04.01.1989. The said applicants also filed W.P.No.12943 of
2004, with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to
consider their applications. The said writ petition was
disposed on 05.10.2004. Later, Contempt Case No.604 of
2007 was filed.
(c) Section 28-A applications were verified, and it was
found that 103 applications are genuine. Notices have been
served to all Section 28-A applicants. The claimants attended
the enquiry on various dates and their statements were
recorded. Award No.9/28-A/2007-08 was passed relating to
re-determination of compensation.
(d) In L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch cases,
petitioners‟ Advocate requested on behalf of his clients to
reduce the enhanced compensation awarded by the Court by
10%. Accordingly, authorities reduced the amount, and the
reduced amount was paid to the applicants under Section 18
SRS J
of the Act. Accordingly compensation was redetermined
under Section 28-A of the Act vide award No.9/28-A/2007-08
dated 02.02.2008.
(e) The claimants under Section 28-A of the Act were
not turned up before the Special Deputy Collector (LA),
Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, to receive cheques for
amount awarded. The amount was deposited and later it was
lapsed during the financial year 2009-10.
(f) Petitioners filed W.P.No.3415 of 2008, to declare the
orders passed by the Land acquisition Officer vide
proceedings dated 24.01.2008 under Section 28A of the Act,
is illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of
on 18.03.2009. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila
Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet filed review petition vide WPMP
No.21680 of 2009, meanwhile petitioners filed Contempt Case
No.992 of 2009. The High Court dismissed the review petition
on 19.04.2010 and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to
comply with the orders in W.P.No.3415 of 2008.
(g) In compliance of the orders of the High Court in
W.P.No.3415 of 2008, P.V. proposals for an amount of
SRS J
Rs.28,72,548/- was submitted to the Special Deputy
Collector and proposals were approved by the Special
Collector on 10.10.2010. Award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011
dated 12.10.2010 was passed and the statutory benefits have
been calculated on par with the judgment and decree in
L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988. In view
of the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.3415 of 2008 dated
18.03.2009, earlier Award No.9/28-A/2007-08 dated
02.02.2008 was cancelled. Consequently, Award
No.16/28(A)/2010-2011, dated 12.10.2010, was passed and
compensation was paid to the petitioners. Eventually, prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition appearing for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
while passing award under Section 28-A of the Act, the
authority has not redetermined the compensation, as per the
orders passed by the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.118 of
1982 and batch, dated 27.09.1988.
SRS J
6. Learned Government Pleader per contra, would contend
that initially Award No.9/28-A/2007-08, dated 02.02.2008
was passed. Later pursuant to order in W.P.No.3415 of 2008
dated 18.03.2009, Award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated
12.10.2010 was passed re-determining the compensation, as
per the enhancement made by the reference court.
7. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief
as sought for?
2) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer re-
determined the compensation under Section
28-A of the Act in accordance with order of the
reference Court in LAOP No.218 of 1982 and
batch dated 27.09.1988?
3) Whether the awardees, in an award passed under
Sec 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are
entitled to more benefits than the benefits
awarded under Reference under Section 18 of
the Act?
8. At the outset, it is very unfortunate that while filing the
writ petition, some of the petitioners were shown as dead and
they were represented by their legal representatives, which is
SRS J
unknown to law. For example, Petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 etc.
were shown as died, represented by their legal
representatives in the cause title. If any person, entitled to
any statutory benefit or intends to enforce his statutory right
is dead by the date of initiation of proceedings, the legal
representative of the said person will file necessary
application and later approach the Court by stating that the
deceased person is entitled to the benefit and since he/she is
dead, the person approaching is entitled to the benefit being
the legal representative. In such an event, the cause title
should be, the person approaching the Court shall be arrayed
as petitioner (be it wife, son or daughter of the deceased). In
the affidavit, the details qua the claim shall be mentioned.
9. The cause title, in the case at hand, would reflect the
dead person and then representing the dead person. Showing
dead person as petitioner in the cause title, represented by
son/daughter or wife, in the opinion of this Court, such
course is impermissible. In fact, writ petition, itself, is liable
to dismissed on that ground. However, since pleadings were
completed, this Court intends to proceed further and
adjudicate the issues on merits.
SRS J
10. As seen from the pleadings and material available on
record, in respect of the lands acquired belonged to
petitioners and some of petitioners predecessors in interest,
award No.12/1980-81, dated 29.12.1980 was passed. Some
of the awardees sought for reference under Section 18 of the
Act. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the
same to the Sub-ordinate Court, Kadapa, under Section 18 of
the Act. By order dated 27.09.1988 in LAOP No.118 of 1982
and batch, the reference Court enhanced the compensation.
11. Reference Court awarded solatium at 30%; Additional
market value @ 12%; interest @ 9% for first year from the
date of award and 15% thereafter till payment.
12. Initially, the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
Officer, Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet authority passed
award No.9/28A/2007-2008 dated 02.02.2008 under Section
28-A of the Act. Since the authority failed to re-determine
compensation as per the judgment of reference Court,
petitioners filed W.P.No.3415 of 2008. The said writ petition
was disposed on 18.03.2009. Petitioners also filed Contempt
Case No.992 of 2009. The Special Deputy Collector filed
SRS J
review petition, vide W.P.M.P.No.21680 of 2009. The review
petition was dismissed.
13. Later, the Special Deputy Collector/Land Acquisition
Officer, Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet passed award
No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated 12.10.2010 re-determining the
compensation as per the orders in LAOP. In the award dated
12.10.2010, the Land Acquisition Officer granted all the
benefits as was granted by reference court in LAOP No.118 of
1982 and batch.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefits such as 15% solatium,
12% additional market value and interest on additional
market value. In fact, the case at hand 12% additional
market value was granted from 4(1) notification i.e.
22.12.1977 to 29.12.1980 (1102 days). However, without
noticing the same, petitioners sought benefit.
15. Section 28A of the Act was introduced by Act 68 of
1994. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing
the said provision are re-produced below:
SRS J
"Considering that the right of reference to the civil court
under Section 18 of the Act is not usually taken
advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is
usually exercised by the comparatively affluent
landowners and that this causes considerable inequality
in the payment of compensation for the same or similar
quality of land to different interested parties, it is
proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved
parties whose land is covered under the same
notification to seek re-determination of compensation,
once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of
higher compensation from the reference court under
Section 18 of the Act."
16. The three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumari and
Ors.1, held thus:
"Section 28A is, therefore, in the nature of a beneficent
provision intended to remove inequality and to give relief
to the inarticulate and poor people who are not able to
take advantage of right of reference to the civil court
under Section 18 of the Act. In relation to beneficent
legislation, the law is well-settled that while construing
the provisions of such a legislation the court should
adopt a construction which advances the policy of the
legislation to extend the benefit rather than a
construction which has the effect of curtailing the
benefit conferred by it. The provisions of Section 28A
should, therefore, be construed keeping in view the
object underlying the said provision."
17. The relief sought in the writ petition that the petitioners
are entitled to 15% solatium and 12% of additional market
value and interest on solatium, in the opinion of this Court,
AIR 1995 SC 2259
SRS J
the petitioners are not entitled, since the reference Court did
not grant such reliefs while answering reference under
Section 18 of the Act. Whatever the benefits granted by the
reference Court under Section 18 of the Act were extended,
while passing award under Section 28A of the Act, to the
awardees.
18. Petitioners by filing writ petition are claiming the reliefs
which were not granted to the claimants in LAOP No.118 of
1982 and batch pursuant to Award dated 12.10.2010 passed
under Section 28A of the Act.
19. Petitioners filed writ petition in the year 2021 i.e. after
11 years of award passed by 4th respondent re-determining
the compensation under Section 28A of the Act. The affidavit
is silent about the petitioners failure to approach the Court at
the earliest point of time. No reason was offered in the
affidavit qua non approaching the Court within reasonable
period. The Writ petition, in fact, is liable to be dismissed on
the grounds of latches also.
SRS J
20. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its
Chairman & Managing Director Vs. K. Thangappan and
another2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under;
"Delay and laches is one of the factors which is to be
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise
their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In an appropriate case, the High Court may
refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such
negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to
assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of
time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the
opposite party....."
21. However, since the petitioners are claiming benefits as
per the judgment of reference Court, this Court is not going
into latches aspect.
22. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon
the judgment of the composite High Court in Government of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Musalikoppu Janardhana3. In the said
case, while re-determining the compensation, the authority
restricted the interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing
of their applications under Section 28A of the Act and to 15%
per annum from the expiry of one year and till the date of
payment. Since interest was restricted while re-determining
(2006) 4 SCC 322
2009 (2) ALD 567
SRS J
the compensation, learned single Judge allowed the writ
petition filed by the petitioners therein. After considering the
statement of objects of Section 28A of the Act and Pradeep
Kumari's case (supra-1), the Division Bench of the composite
High Court, eventually upheld the order in the writ petition
and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the State. Thus, the
facts in M.Janardhana's are different from the facts at the
case at hand. Hence, the ratio will not apply to the facts of
this case. Awardees under Section 28-A of the Act, at no
stretch of imagination, get relief beyond the relief granted in
LAOP, reference under Section 18 of the Act.
23. It is not the case of petitioners herein that in LAOP
No.118 of 1982 and batch, the petitioners therein were
granted the benefits and while re-determining the
compensation under Section 28A of the Act, 4th respondent
did not extend those benefits. Whatever the benefits conferred
on those petitioners in LAOP No.118 of 1982 were extended
to awardees while passing award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011
dated 12.10.2010 under Section 28A of the Act.
SRS J
24. The other aspect of the case is if really petitioners were
deprived of their statutory benefit, in terms of reference court
judgment, they could have availed the remedy under Section
28A(3) of the Act.
25. Section 28-A (3) of the Act, which is relevant is
extracted herewith:
"Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-
section (2) may, by written application to the Collector,
required that the matter be referred by the Collector for
the determination of the Court and the provisions of
Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be apply to such
reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18."
26. A perusal of extracted Rule 3 of Section 28-A of the Act,
would manifest that if a person is aggrieved by the award
under Section 28-A(2) of the Act, he can make a written
application to the Collector. In such a case, the provisions of
18 to 28 may apply so far as may be. Under Section 18 of the
Act, an application has to be filed within six weeks, if the
person is present or represented before the Collector at the
time of the award or six weeks from the date of Collector‟s
award. In other cases, two months from the date of service of
notice, from the District Collector under Section 12 (2) of the
Act. Under Section 28-A of the Act, after the reference made
SRS J
by the Civil Court, the other awardee has to make a written
application seeking re-determination, within a period of three
months from the date of award of the Civil Court.
27. The case at hand, award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 was
passed under Section 28-A of the Act, on 12.10.2010. In fact,
as observed supra, award dated 12.10.2010 was passed in
consonance with the order of the reference Court in LAOP
No.118 of 1982 and batch dated 27.09.1988. If petitioners
are aggrieved that the compensation was not properly re-
determined in award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011 dated
12.10.2010, they would have sought reference under Rule 3
of Section 28-A. However, without moving their little finger,
petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition, almost 11 years thereafter. In the affidavit, there is
no plea regarding the petitioners in not approaching the
Court within a reasonable time.
28. This Court is not non-suiting the petitioners on the
ground that petitioners failed to avail alternative remedy. In
fact, this Court is only indicating that petitioner, indeed, got
remedy under Section 28-A(3) of the Act.
SRS J
29. As narrated supra, award No.16/28(A)/2010-2011
dated 12.10.2010 in consonance with the judgment in LAOP
No.118 of 1982 and batch.
30. In view of the discussion made supra, this Court does
not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand dismissed.
________________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
5th December, 2023
PVD
