Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs P Prasad on 5 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010239172023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 779/2023
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
P Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The land of the respondents to an extent of Ac.36.42 cents situated in
various survey numbers of Chippagiri Village and Mandal of Kurnool District
was taken over for the purpose of construction of an Additional Summer
Storage Tank for the Indian Railways. This land was taken under the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(herein referred to as "the Act"). The said proceedings were challenged by the
RRR, J & MRK, J
respondents on various grounds, by approaching this Court, by way of
W.P.No.18725 of 2021. The first ground raised by the respondents was that
the timeline, required to be mentioned under the Act, had been violated.
Secondly, "the appropriate Government" mentioned under the Act would be
the Central Government, whereas, the acquisition process had been
conducted by the State Government and as such, the entire proceedings
would stand vitiated and would have to be set aside.
2. A learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the Writ
Petition, by way of an order, dated 13.02.2023, on the ground that the
timelines set out in the Act had been breached and consequently, the
acquisition proceedings stand quashed and set aside.
3. Aggrieved by this order of the Learned Single Judge, dated
13.02.2023, the appellants herein had moved the present Writ Appeal before
this Court. The said Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court, by passing an order, dated 13.10.2023. The Division Bench took the
view that the "appropriate Government" for conducting the acquisition
proceedings would be the Central Government in as much as, it is the Indian
Railways, which is a part of the Central Government, which was seeking the
land. The appellants, being aggrieved by this order, dated 13.10.2023, had
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by way of S.L.P(Civil)
No.2591 of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after granting leave, had
RRR, J & MRK, J
disposed of the Appeal, dated 29.04.2024, which was numbered as Civil
Appeal No.5471 of 2024.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid Judgment, held that
the view of the Division Bench of this Court, that the State Government was
not competent to initiate the acquisition process, was incorrect. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the State Government would be competent to initiate
the acquisition process in respect of the land situated within the territory of
that State, so long as the acquisition is for a public purpose.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the objections of the
learned counsel for the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had
also held that it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the
Division Bench to consider any further objections that might be raised by the
respondents including the question of violation of the timelines prescribed
under the Act.
6. Sri N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that there has been a clear violation of the
timelines set out under the provisions of the Act. He would submit that Section
19 (7) of the Act stipulates that the publication of declaration and summary of
rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 19 (1) of the Act would have to
be made within 12 months from the date of the preliminary notification that
shall be issued under Section 11 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel submits
that in this case, the preliminary notification was issued under Section 11 (1)
RRR, J & MRK, J
of the Act on 04.12.2017, while the notification under Section 19 (1) was
issued only on 28.08.2019, which is beyond the period of 12 months. He
would further submit that the extension of time permitted under the second
proviso of Section 19 (7), which is relied upon by the appellants, also would
not rescue the process. He would submit that the extension of time given
under this proviso on 05.12.2018 and 06.03.2019 would be of no avail as the
said extension had been given without proper justification and without a
declaration of the Government that the circumstances exist justifying such
extension.
7. The learned counsel would also submit that the award under
Section 25 of the Act is to be passed within 12 months from the date of
declaration under Section 19 (1). In the present case, the declaration under
Section 19 (1) was issued on 28.08.2019 and the award should have been
passed by 20.08.2020, failing which the entire proceedings for acquisition
would lapse. However, the award was passed only on 30.09.2021. He would
further submit that though the first proviso to Section 25 empowers the
Government to extend the period of 12 months, the second proviso
subsequently requires the said decision to be in writing and to be uploaded on
the website of the authority concerned. He would submit that this requirement
is to ensure compliance of the requirement under the first proviso that such
extension is being given as the Government is of the opinion that
circumstances justifying such delay exist. He would submit that there is no
RRR, J & MRK, J
such circumstance set out in the orders of extension passed on 20.08.2020,
26.02.2021 and 28.08.2021.
8. The Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants
would submit that the proceedings of the Government, on the dates
mentioned above, clearly give reasons for grant of extension. He would submit
that the primary problem faced by the authorities was the disruption due to
Covid Pandemic and as such the Court would have to take a liberal view of
the reasons set out in the order of extension. He would also submit that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the Civil Appeal No.754 of 2024,
had held that the authorities would be entitled to utilize the land and any
defect or violation of the timelines in the Act would only entitle the respondents
to additional compensation. The Learned Government Pleader would draw the
attention of this Court to the reasons set out in the various order of extension.
9. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the question of
disruption due to the Covid Pandemic cannot be looked into as none of the
orders of extension mention this reason. In view of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs The
Chief Election Commissioner1, this Court declines to accept the ground of
disruption due to Covid Pandemic.
10. However, this Court would have to look into the reasons set out in
the extension orders to ascertain whether a proper opinion has been formed
1978 AIR 851: 1978 (1) SCC 405
RRR, J & MRK, J
by the Government that circumstances for granting extension of time were
available.
11. The first set of extension orders relate to the extension of period
between the notification under Section 11 (1) and the declaration under
Section 19 (1) of the Act. These proceedings had been placed before this
Court. The first order of extension was on 05.12.2018, stating that the initial
summary of rehabilitation and resettlement is not clear and the scheme was
sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, to submit and revise
rehabilitation and resettlement scheme due to which further time is required
and a period of three months from 05.12.2018 to 04.03.2019 was granted by
way of extension. Thereafter, a further extension order, dated 06.03.2019
extending the period by six months was issued. In this order, it was stated that
the R & R scheme had been resubmitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Adoni and the same has already been approved by the Joint Collector,
Kurnool, consequent to which, the scheme would have to be published, after
calling for objections. It was stated that for this purpose, time would have to be
extended as the stipulated time would lapse on 04.03.2019 and also on the
ground that general elections were to be held within a short period and the
same would require extension of time. Thereafter, the notification under
Section 19 (1) was published on 28.08.2019.
12. After the publication of notification under Section 19 (1), the
award was required to be passed by 27.08.2019. However, an order of
RRR, J & MRK, J
extension, under the second proviso to Section 25 was issued on 27.08.2020.
In this extension order, it was stated that steps were being taken to obtain the
consent of the displaced persons, for the award. However, such consent could
not be obtained as some of the affected persons were asking for conduct of a
survey to ascertain the actual extent of land available on the ground. The
extension has been given on this ground. Thereafter, a further extension order
was issued on 26.02.2021, stating that consent for passing of the award
required further time as the affected persons were asking for a higher
compensation amount. On this basis, time was extended by a further period of
six months from 28.02.2021 to 27.08.2021. After this extension, a further
extension was granted on 27.08.2021 on the ground that the amount required
for passing the award is insufficient and the revenue department had to
deposit an amount of Rs.13,35,700/- as an additional amount for further
action. On this ground, further extension of time of three months from
28.08.2021 to 27.11.2021 was granted.
13. The requirement under the second proviso to Section 19 (7) and
the requirement under the first proviso to Section 25, for extension of time, is
essentially the same. The second proviso to Section 19 (7) reads as follows:
"provided further that the appropriate government
shall have the power to extend the period of 12 months, if
in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same"
14. The first proviso to Section 25 is identical.
RRR, J & MRK, J
15. The said proviso empowers the appropriate government to
extend the time if it is of the opinion that circumstances justifying such
extension exist.
16. Keeping in view the fact that the Act is to ensure adequate,
proper and timely compensation to the affected persons, the said proviso
would have to be read strictly. This would mean that mere recording of a
reason for grant of extension would not be sufficient. Any such reason,
recorded in the extension order, would have to meet the test of
reasonableness and adequacy. This would mean that the opinion of the
government should be based on objective and valid reasons. It may also be
observed that mere inefficiency of the government or negligence on the part of
the officials of the appropriate government cannot be covered up and rescued
by extension of time by the appropriate government. Any other view would
render the requirement of Section 19 (7) and Section 25, that the acquisition
process should be completed, and compensation should be paid to the
affected parties, within the stipulated period of time, would be rendered otiose.
17. Keeping this in the background, this Court would now have to see
whether the reasons set out in the various extension orders mentioned above
meet such an objective satisfaction.
18. The reason given for the first extension of time between the
notification under Section 11 (1) and Section 19 and the notification under
Section 19 (1) of the Act was that the R & R package was not ready and
RRR, J & MRK, J
required clarification from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The subsequent
notification was granted on the ground that the time for calling for objections
was not sufficient and that the general elections were due. The said reasons
only demonstrate the inaction on the part of the officials of the State
Government and such inaction cannot be condoned through extension of time.
Such extension of time would have to be for extraordinary situations which
render compliance of the timelines difficult. No such circumstances appear to
be available.
19. As far as the extension of time between the declaration under
Section 19 (1) and the passing of the award under Section 25 is concerned,
the first extension was sought on the ground that some objection was being
raised by the affected persons in relation to the extent of land being taken
over by the appropriate government. The second extension was sought on the
ground that the award could not be obtained on account of the affected
persons asking for higher compensation. The third extension was obtained on
the ground that further amount was required from the requisitioning
department. To the mind of this Court, these grounds are not sufficient to seek
extension of time and any such opinion formed by the government for
extension of time on the basis of such circumstances cannot be accepted to
be in terms of the aforesaid provisos to Section 19 (7) and Section 25 (1) of
the Act.
RRR, J & MRK, J
20. In these circumstances, the present Writ appeal is dismissed.
However, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land
would remain vested with the Central Government and the respondents herein
would only be entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of issuance of
a fresh notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act and completion of the
acquisition proceedings. Needless to say, any additional compensation would
have to be paid by the requisitioning authority. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
05.11.2024
MJA
RRR, J & MRK, J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 779 of 2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
05.11.2024
MJA
