The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs P Prasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 4949 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   WRIT APPEAL No.779 of 2023

Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Land Acquisition Department
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati,
Andhra Pradesh and 3 others
                                                        ...Appellants
                                 Versus

P. Prasad, S/o.Venkateswarlu,
Aged about 61 years, C/o.Srinivasa Chowdary,
Srinivasa Nagar, Alur Road, Guntakal,
Anantapuramu District and 6 others                    ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants         : Government Pleader for Land
                                     Acquisition

Counsel for respondents 1 to 6     : Mr. Challa Gunaranjan

                              JUDGMENT

Dt:13.10.2023 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition,

appearing for the Appellants and Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned

counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6.

2. The appellants had issued a notification dated 04.12.2017,

under Section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

and Resettlement Ac, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ―Act 30 of

2013‖) proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioner for

formation of an Additional Summer Storage Water Tank, for the

benefit of the South Central Railways, Guntakal. Thereafter, a

declaration under Section 19 of the Act 30 of 2013 was published on

20.08.2019. Subsequently, an award was passed by the 3rd

respondent on 30.09.2021.

3. Respondents 1 to 6 had approached this Court, by way of

W.P.No.18725 of 2021, challenging the notification dated

04.12.2017 and the declaration, dated 20.08.2019, and

consequential land acquisition proceedings including the award of

the 3rd respondent bearing Award No.01 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021.

4. Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013 mandates that the award,

under the Act 30 of 2013 has to be passed within a period of 12

months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section

19 the Act 30 of 2013, failing which, the entire proceedings would

lapse.

5. The proviso, to section 25, entitles the appropriate

Government to extend the period of 12 months, in circumstances

justifying such an extension. It appears that the District Collector,

Kurnool had extended the time for passing the award by six months

from 20.08.2020 to 28.02.2021. Respondents 1 to 6 contend that

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

the said extension would expire on 28.02.2021 and there was no

further extension up to 30.09.2021. It was submitted that in such a

case, the award passed on 30.09.2021 as well as the entire

proceeding for the acquisition would have to lapse in view of Section

25 of Act 30 of 2013.

6. The appellants filed counter affidavits in which it is stated

that respondents 1 to 6 having participated in the acquisition

proceedings and having allowed the award to be passed on

30.09.2021 cannot seek to challenge the proceedings at this stage.

The appellants took the specific stand the respondents 1 to 6 had

attended the land acquisition meetings and had agreed to hand over

their lands if they were paid compensation at the rate of Rs.15 lakhs

per acre and that they had filing consented for the rate of Rs.9 lakhs

per acre after which respondents 3, 5 and 6 have received

compensation amount of Rs.65,46,202/- under protest and the

remaining respondents 1, 2 and 4 had not taken the land

compensation amount offered to them despite receipt of notice

under Form-9.

7. The leaned Single Judge after hearing both sides had allowed

the Writ petition quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition

proceedings while leaving it open to the appellants to initiate fresh

acquisition in accordance with law.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

8. Smt. A. Sri Jayanthi, the learned Government Pleader for

Land Acquisition would submit that the respondents 1 to 6 having

participated in the land acquisition proceedings were estopped,

from challenging the same subsequently. She submits that the

learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Writ Petition in

view of the acquiescence of the respondents 1 to 6 in the land

acquisition proceedings. Smt. A. Sri Jayanthi would also submit that

the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending limitation, in

view of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Suo motu W.P.No.3 of 2020, from

time to time, would also have to be taken into account and the

period granted for completion of the acquisition proceedings would

have to be extended on that basis. She has also pressed into service

two more declarations published by the district collector dated

28.02.2021 and 28.08.2021 wherein extension was granted, for

passing of the award, from 28.02.2021 to 27.08.2021 and from

28.08.2021 to 27.11.2021

9. Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 1 to 6 would submit that there can be no waiver of

provisions of law and the award passed on 30.09.2021 is clearly

beyond the time stipulated under Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013

and the consequences mandated in the said Act would have to be

implemented. He would further submit that the Judgment of the

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suo motu W.P.No.3 of 2020, relied upon

by the learned Government Pleader would not be applicable to the

facts of the case as the said Judgment relate to relaxation of the

provisions of the Limitation Act and in any event relaxation in

favour of the parties seeking to file proceedings, suits or appeals

before the appropriate body and the appellants cannot claim any

benefit from the said orders.

10. Sri Challa Gunaranjan would also raise two further

submissions. He would submit that the notification under Section 11

and Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013 would have to be initiated by

the ―appropriate Government‖ as defined under Section 3(e) of the

Act 30 of 2013 and that the notification, in the present case, would

have to be published in the Gazette of India in view of the provisions

of Section 11 r/w Section 3(e) of the Act 30 of 2013. As the

notifications under Section 11 and Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013

were issued by the District Collector and were published in District

Gazette, the same are not in accordance with Section 11 or Section

25 of the Act 30 of 2013 and consequently the acquisition

proceedings would have to be set aside.

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

11. He relied upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of the High

Court of Madras reported in Thirumani Dharmaraj vs. State of

Tamil Nadu1.

12. Smt. A. Sri Jayanthi replying to the said contention relies

upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Datla

Venkata Appala Prasadaraju vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh2. In

this case, the Division Bench had framed an issue on the question of

whether notifications are bad in law if they are notified only in the

District Gazette and no notification is published in the State

Gazette. This Court after considering the earlier Judgment of

Division Bench of High Court in the case of Gampa Dali Naidu vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh3 and a Judgment of a larger bench of the

High Court, consisting of five learned Judges, in the case of

Seethapathi Nageswara Rao and Ors vs. The Government of Andhra

Pradesh and Others4., had held that publication in the District

Gazette amounts to publication in the official Gazette and such

publication would be proper compliance of Section 11(1)(a) of the

Act 30 of 2013.

2023 SCC Online Mad 3772

2023(2) ALD 453

1990(2) ALT 363

AIR 1978 AP 121

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

Consideration of the Court:

13. The learned Single Judge after considering the provisions of

Section 11 and 25 of the Act 30 of 2013 had held that the award

should have been passed on or before 20th August, 2020 while the

award was passed on 30.09.2021. The learned Single Judge also

took into account the extension of time given by the District

Collector, under Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013, for the period

from 20.08.2020 to 20.09.2021. The learned Single Judge after

taking into account both these facts had held that the award was

beyond the time stipulated under the Act and consequently

acquisition proceeding would have to lapsed.

14. The appellants have now produced two more proceedings

dated 28.02.2021 and 28.08.2021 wherein extension was granted

for passing of the award from 28.02.2021 to 27.08.2021 and from

28.08.2021 to 27.11.2021. In the circumstances, the premise on

which the order of the learned Single Judge had been passed would

not be available before this Court. To that extent it must be held that

the award has been passed within time.

15. However, the contention of Sri Challa Gunaranjan that the

notification has not been published in the appropriate Gazette and

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

that the notification has not been issued by the appropriate

Government remains.

16. The provisions relevant for these issues are Sections 3(e),

3(v), 11(1) and Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013 which reads as

follows:

Section 3(e) ―‖appropriate Government‖ means,--

(i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of, a State, the State Government;

(ii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within a Union territory (except Puducherry), the Central Government;

(iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union territory of Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of Puducherry;

(iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more than one State, the Central Government, in consultation with the concerned State Governments or Union territories; and

(v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union as may be specified by notification, the Central Government: Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government;

Section 3 (v) ―notification means a notification published in the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Gazette of a State and the expression ―notify shall be construed accordingly;

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

Section 11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers.-

(1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:--

(a) in the Official Gazette;

(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language;

(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;

(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;

(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed.

Section 25. Period within which an award shall be made.-

The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.

17. In the present case, the notifications under Section 11(1) of

Act 30 of 2013 state that the land, in question, was needed for the

public purpose of formation of Additional Summer Water Tank

under South Central Railways, Guntakal. The South Central

Railways is a part of Indian Railways which is a part of the Union of

India. Accordingly, it must be held that the acquisition of land is for

the purpose of the Union of India and the appropriate Government

would be the Central Government of India under Rule 3(e)(v) of the

Act 30 of 2013. Section 11 of the Act 30 of 2013 requires the

appropriate Government to publish the notification under Section

11 of the Act 30 of 2013 in the official Gazette. Section 3(v) defines

―notification‖ to mean the notification published in the Gazette of

India or, as the case may be, a Gazette of the State. This would mean

that acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union would have to

be published in the Gazette of India. In the present case, the

notification, admittedly, was published in the District Gazette of

Kurnool District.

18. Further this notification was published by the District Collector

of Kurnool. Section 3(e) provides for recognizing the Collector of a

District as the appropriate Government if the appropriate

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

Government notifies that the Collector of the said District would be

deemed to be the appropriate Government in respect of a public

purpose in the District for an area not exceeding the limit set by the

appropriate Government. In the present case, no such notification

has been placed before this Court. This Court would have to hold

that the District Collector, who issued the notification, under

Section 11 of the Act 30 of 2013, is not the appropriate Government

and consequently the notification would have to be treated as non-

est. All consequential proceedings, including the declaration under

section 19 and the award proceedings of 30.09.2021 would have to

fail.

19. The question of whether publication in the District Gazette

would amount to a notification under Section 11 would not arise in

the present case as the notification is a notification which would

have to be published in the Gazette of India and not the State

Gazette.

20. Smt. A. Sri Jayanthi had contended that respondents 1 to 6

having acquiesced in the process cannot turn around and challenge

the acquisition proceedings. It seems that respondents 3, 5 and 6

who had accepted the compensation had done so under protest and

the remaining respondents 1, 2 and 4 had not accepted the

compensation at all. In such circumstances, this cannot be treated

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

as a case of acquiescence. Further this Court cannot turned a blind

eye to the violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act 30 of

2013 as this is an Act which seeks to ensure proper compensation

to the persons who lose their land in acquisition proceedings. For

all the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is

affirmed, though for different reasons.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

RJS

HCJ&RRR,J W.A. No.779 of 2023

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.779 of 2023

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 13.10.2023

RJS