Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Alamuru Sarala vs The National Highways Authority Of ... on 30 August, 2024

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

APHC010349942023        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                    PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3488]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

            FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                             PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                  WRIT APPEAL NO: 744/2023

Between:
Karanam Girijamma and Others                     ...APPELLANT(S)

                                AND

The National Highways Authority Of India and   ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

   1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. S S VARMA
   2. GP FOR REVENUE
   3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION


                 WRIT APPEAL NO: 843/2023

Between:
Mula Venkateswara Reddy and Others               ...APPELLANT(S)

                                AND

The National Highways Authority Of India and   ...RESPONDENT(S)
                                    2
                                                         RRR,J & HN,J
                                               W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850


Others

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

   1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
   2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)


                  WRIT APPEAL NO: 844/2023


Between:

Jetty Sanjeeva Rayudu and Others                        ...APPELLANT(S)

                                AND

The National Highways Authority Of India and         ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

   1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

   2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)


                 WRIT APPEAL NO: 850/2023

Between:
Alamuru Sarala and Others                               ...APPELLANT(S)

                                AND
                                     3
                                                         RRR,J & HN,J
                                               W.A.Nos.774, 843, 844 & 850


The National Highways Authority Of India and         ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

   1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
   2. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)



                         COMMON JUDGMENT

Dt: 30.08.2024 (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and Sri Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S.

Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These three appeals arise out of a common order of a

learned single judge of this Court dated 20.07.2023 and are being

disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The respondents, for the purpose of laying National

Highway No.544(D) from Ananthapuram to Giddalur Road Section

initiated acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act,

1956 (for short 'the Act') for various lands, including the lands of the

appellants herein.

RRR,J & HN,J

4. The preliminary notification under Section 3(A) of the Act

dated 09.12.2017 was published in the newspapers, after the Central

Government had authorized the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector (4th

respondent in writ petition) as the competent authority for such land

acquisition, by way of S.O.No.2698(E) dated 21.08.2017 published in

the Gazettee of India. Subsequent proceedings that had to be initiated

under various sub sections of Section 3 of the Act were also taken up

culminating in publication of notification under Section 3(G) by the 3rd

respondent dated 04.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 respectively. Thereafter,

39 awards for land acquired in about 29 villages, were passed between

22.09.2018 to 10.06.2019. The awards in relation to the appellants in

W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023 were passed on

24.10.2018. The award in relation to W.A.No.744 of 2023 was passed

on 10.06.2019. The compensation amount payable under the first two

awards, amounting to Rs.1,67,71,129/- was also deposited in the

account of the 3rd respondent on 14.11.2018. At this stage, the

proposal for building the said National Highway, is said to have been

dropped and nothing further was heard. Subsequently, the 3rd

respondent-Joint Collector, by a letter dated 05.03.2022 addressed to

the 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram stated

that a decision had been taken to revive the acquisition process and

called upon the 5th respondent-R.D.O to obtain basic value details, as

RRR,J & HN,J

on 01.01.2022, from the concerned Sub-Registrars as the awards

passed under Section 3(G) were between the period 22.09.2018 to

10.09.2019.

5. In pursuance of these instructions, the appellants and

other affected persons were called, on 15.03.2023, to attend a meeting

convened by the 5th respondent-RDO, on 16.03.2022. In this meeting,

on 16.03.2022, the 5th respondent-RDO informed the land owners that

awards had already been passed in the years 2018 and 2019 and

compensation would be paid to them as per the said awards.

6. Aggrieved by the passing of such awards and the proposal

of the respondents to pay compensation in accordance with such

awards, the appellants herein had moved writ petitions before this

Court. These writ petitions, along with some other writ petitions filed by

other affected parties were heard together and dismissed by way of a

common order dated 20.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of

dismissal, the present appeals have been filed.

7. The case of the appellants before the learned single judge

was that none of the appellants were aware of the passing of any

award, by the competent authority, in the year 2018 and 2019 and the

first intimation of such an award was given to them only on 16.03.2022.

The appellants contended that such an award is contrary to the

RRR,J & HN,J

provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 as the award should have

been preceded by deposit of compensation whereas no such

compensation was deposited as required under Section 3(H) of the

Act. Such an award, passed without deposit of compensation would

amount to a paper award which cannot be permitted. The judgment of

the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and

the State of Andhra Pradesh in Madhavarao Gandhe vs. land

Acquisition Officer1 was relied upon.

8. The award fixing compensation was passed on the basis

of land prices in the year 2017 and payment of such compensation in

the year 2022 after the prices of land in the area had increased by a

huge margin, is arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India.

9. These contentions of the appellants were rejected by the

learned single judge on the ground that an amount of Rs.1,67,71,129/-

was deposited on 14.11.2018 with the competent authority and there

was no violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act.

10. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants would contend that a combined reading of the provisions of

Section 3(A) to 3(H) of the Act would show that there is a

comprehensive scheme for acquisition of land and violation of any part

1994(3) ALT 175

RRR,J & HN,J

of such a scheme would render the entire acquisition process null and

void. He would submit that the scheme required the competent

authority to seek deposit of compensation from the executing authority,

even before the passing of the award and thereafter the executing

authority would have to deposit the said money with the competent

authority, within 7 days from the determination of the compensation,

under the old Rules of 1998 and within 15 days under the new Rules

issued in the year 2019. He would submit that such a deposit had

never been made and consequently the entire process is rendered

void.

11. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy would also contend that the

scheme, set out in the Act, requires intimation of the award being given

to the affected parties at the earliest and payment of compensation to

be made to them immediately thereafter. In the present case, awards

which are alleged to have been passed in the year 2018 and 2019

were intimated to the affected persons only in the year 2022. The long

gap of 3 to 4 years between the passing of the award and intimation of

such award to the affected parties renders the whole process arbitrary

and would have to be set aside.

12. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy would submit that the learned

single judge had ignored these aspects while passing orders against

the appellants and as such, the judgment of the learned single judge

RRR,J & HN,J

requires to be set aside and the awards passed against the appellants

would also required to be set aside.

13. Sri B.S. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S.

Varma, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the

requirements of the Rules as well as the provisions of Section 3(H)

have been complied in view of the deposit of compensation in

November, 2018 itself. He would submit that there is no error or

arbitrariness in the awards passed against the appellants and the

appellants cannot claim any additional compensation on these grounds

or seek to set aside the acquisition proceedings.

Consideration of the Court:

14. Sections 3(A) to Section 3(J) of the Act are the provisions

under which land is to be acquired for the purpose of building,

maintenance management or operation of a National Highway. The

process is initiated by the Central Government issuing a notification

under Section 3(A)(1), of its satisfaction, that land is required for a

National Highway. After issuance of this notification, authorized

personnel are permitted to carry out preliminary activities such as

inspection, survey measurement etc., in relation to the land proposed

to be acquired. Simultaneously, any affected person can file objections

to the notification issued under Section 3(A)(1) and such objections

RRR,J & HN,J

would be heard by the competent authority under Section 3(C). After

consideration of such objections, where they are filed, a declaration of

acquisition is issued, under Section 3(D), which is published in the

official Gazette. Upon such publication, the land vests absolutely in the

Central Government under Section 3(D)(2). Section 3(3) also

mandates that the notification under Section 3(D)(1) is to be issued

within one year from the date of publication of the notification under

Section 3(A)(1), failing which the entire process lapses.

15. After these notifications, the authorized personnel can

enter into the land for carrying out necessary work in relation to the

National Highway. However, possession cannot be taken at this stage.

For the purpose of taking possession, the compensation payable to the

affected parties has to be determined under Section 3(G) and the

amount determined under Section 3(G) has to be deposited by the

Central Government, with the competent authority. After such deposit,

possession of the land may be taken in the manner set out in Section

3(E). Section 3(H)(2) states that the competent authority, as soon as

the compensation amount has been deposited by the Central

Government, shall pay the said amounts to the persons entitled there

to.

RRR,J & HN,J

16. In the present case, proceedings under Section 3(A) to

3(D) as well as proceedings under Section 3(G) are said to have been

completed. There is a dispute as to whether there has been

compliance of the provisions of Section 3(H) and 3(E).

17. It is necessary to notice the National Highways (Manner of

deposit of the amount by the Central Government with the competent

Authority for Acquisition of land) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as

'the 1998 Rules') and subsequent Rules of 2019 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the 2019 Rules').

18. Section 3(H) states that the compensation determined

under Section 3(G) shall be deposited by the Central Government as

per the procedure set out in the Rules made in this behalf. The rules

setting out this procedure were the 1998 Rules. The procedure set out

in these Rules was that the executing agency would deposit the

amount determined under Section 3(G) of the Act within 7 days of such

determination by the competent authority. These Rules would apply to

the acquisitions assailed in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of

2023. The 1998 Rules were subsequently replaced, in 2019, by the

2019 Rules. Under these new Rules, the executing agency has to

open an account to which the competent authority would have access.

The said competent authority, before announcement of the award,

RRR,J & HN,J

under Section 3(4), would raise a demand for the amounts awarded

and such amounts would be deposited within 15 days of the raising of

the demand by the competent authority. The competent authority, in

turn, would disburse the said compensation amount to the land owners

or the persons interested therein preferably by remitting the said

amounts to their respective bank accounts. Where such amounts

remain undisbursed or where amounts could not be disbursed due to

disputes which are referable to the Civil Court under Section 3(H)(4) of

the Act, the said undisbursed amounts are to be deposited by the

competent authority with the principal Court of civil jurisdiction. Such

deposit would be deemed to be payment under Section 3(H)(2) of the

Act.

19. The appellants had relied upon the judgments of this

Court in Bhimvarapuru Giridhar Kumar Reddy vs. Union

Government of India and others2, Chillakuru Rajagopala Reddy

and others vs. District Collector, Nellore and Ors3., Appasani Babu

Rao and others vs. Union of India and another4., and a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through L.Rs

and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,5 to contend that any

legislation relating to acquisition of land is an expropriatory legislation

2012(6) ALD 58 (DB)

2015(2) ALD 433

2020(6)ALT 377 (S.B)

(2011) 5 SCC 553

RRR,J & HN,J

which has to be construed strictly and that any violation or variation of

the provisions of such an Act would result in invalidating any process of

acquisition initiated under such an Act.

20. This Court is in respectful agreement with the said

propositions of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments. However,

the question remains whether there has been any such violation of the

provisions of the Act and the Rules.

21. In the present case, awards had been passed on

24.10.2018 in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023. An

amount of Rs.1,67,71,129/- is said to have been deposited into the

account of the competent authority on 14.11.2018. This deposit is

beyond the period of 7 days set out under the 1998 Rules. While there

is a mention of deposit of the compensation with the competent

authority, there is no mention of the competent authority having either

disbursed the money to the affected persons or that such undisbursed

compensation amount had been deposited with the Civil Court. The

pleadings reveal that no compensation was paid to the appellants who

were the affected parties. The pleadings of the respondents are silent

on the question of whether any compensation amounts were deposited

with the civil Court. The silence of the respondents in this regard can

only lead to the conclusion that no such deposit has been made.

RRR,J & HN,J

22. As far as the award under W.A.No.744 of 2023 is

concerned, the said award had been passed on 10.06.2019 and there

is no averment anywhere that the necessary compensation amount

had been deposited in the account of the competent authority within

the time stipulated in the 2019 Rules.

23. The material placed before this Court along with the

pleadings make it clear that the competent authority did not take any

steps to either deposit the undisbursed money with the civil Court or to

make any payment to the affected parties as the concerned authorities

had decided not to move forward in the acquisition of the land. It is only

in March, 2022 that the process was restarted and the old awards

passed in the year 2018 and 2019 were brought forward for the

purposes of taking over the lands of the appellants. It is also clear that

possession of the land was not taken over by the respondents till

today. In fact, this Court had earlier granted interim directions

protecting the possession of the appellants over their respective lands.

24. Even if it were to be assumed that the compensation

amounts have been deposited as per the rules, the requirement of

section 3H remains. The said Section 3H reads as follows:

RRR,J & HN,J

This provision requires compensation to be paid to the

affected persons as soon as possible and, at any rate, within a short

time from the date of deposit of compensation by the executing

authority. There has been a failure in adhering to this requirement. It is

contended by Sri B.S. Shivaji, that this delay can be compensated by

payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as provided under the

provisions of Section 3H (5).

25. The payment of interest, in the present situation, to the

mind of this Court, would not be adequate compensation. The delay in

payment of compensation is on account of the respondents

abandoning the project. In such a situation, the respondents cannot

make use of awards passed earlier and insist that the affected persons

should accept the said compensation calculated on the market value in

the year 2017. In a manner of speaking, the respondents have also

accepted, by implication, in the letter of the Joint collector, dated

05.03.2022, that compensation should be awarded by taking the

market values of the land, as on 01.01.2022.

26. We are also alive to the fact that the land is required for

construction of a national highway and any delay in such construction