Syed Habibulla Shah, Rajahmundry, ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6072 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Syed Habibulla Shah, Rajahmundry, ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By ... on 14 December, 2023

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

                                                                          37


                    HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

           MAIN CASE No. W.A.No.460 of 2013

                                       PROCEEDINGS SHEET

 Sl.       DATE                                                                 OFFICE
                                             ORDER

 No                                                                              NOTE

05.    14.12.2023         Heard Mr. Kakara Venkata Rao, learned

counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

The case set up by the appellants before the writ Court and before us is that the acquisition proceedings ought to have been deemed to have lapsed in view of the fact that the same were not completed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the spirit of Section 11A of the said Act.

Reliance has been placed upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.Ltd., & another v. State of U.P & another [2022 SCC Online SC 1408], which in paragraph 27 envisages that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse if possession was taken by tendering and paying 80% of the compensation amount and that the rigors of Section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply.

The issue in the present appeal, which calls to be looked at, is whether 80% of the compensation amount was tendered for payment and paid to the

petitioners or not.

On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, a plea was taken that the amount was tendered for payment vide communication dated 27.01.2004 which however was refused by the petitioners - appellants herein. The said document does not appear to have been placed on record.

The second issue is that whether the payment, if it was refused after being offered to the petitioners, was deposited in the Court in terms of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or not.

There is nothing placed on record to suggest that there was a deposit so made upon the refusal by the petitioners of the said amount.

Be that as it may, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is directed to file a short affidavit along with the requisite documents to clarify the aforementioned position with regard to the deposit as also the offer of the payment of 80% of the compensation amount vide communication dated 27.01.2004.

List on 28.12.2023 in the 'For Orders' column.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

Vjl