Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bhimavarapu Nagi Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 September, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao

APHC010580822017
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                        [3488]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)


             TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
                                 AND

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                    WRIT APPEAL No:524 OF 2017

      Between:

     Bhimavarapu Nagi Reddy,                     ...APPELLANT

                                 AND

     State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others       ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. O.M.R. Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Government Pleader For Revenue Ld. Government Pleader For Land Acquisition

The Court made the following order: (per Hon'ble RRR, J)

1. The land of the appellant to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in

Sy. No.208/2, 208/3 and 208/5p of Davuluru Village,

Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired under the

10.09.2024

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 'the

Act, 1894']. A necessary notification under Section 4(1) of

the Act, 1894 was issued on 20.06.2013. A declaration

under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was given on 02.01.2014

and an award fixing compensation was passed on

29.12.2015.

2. This acquisition process was challenged by the appellant by

way of W.P. No.10516 of 2017 before this Court. The

contention of the appellant was that the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short 'the

Act, 2013] had come into force on 01.01.2014. Section 25

of the Act, 2013 mandated that an award should be passed

within twelve months from the date of publication of the

declaration under Section 19 of the Act, 2013. Failing

which, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land

shall lapse. However, the first proviso granted power to the

Government to extend the said period of twelve months if

circumstances justifying the same exist. The appellant

contends that the aforesaid period of twelve months expired

on 02.01.2015 and no orders of the Government extending

10.09.2024

time had been passed. Hence, the passing of the award on

29.12.2015 is beyond the said period and consequently, the

acquisition proceedings should lapse.

3. A learned single judge of this Court, after considering this

contention, dismissed the writ petition by an order dated

24.03.2017. The learned single judge took the view that

Section 24 of the Act, 2013, which brought into application

the remaining provisions of the Act, 2013, had only

stipulated that the new Act would govern the manner of

fixation of compensation and consequently, the time frame

set out under Section 25 of the Act would not be applicable

to the present case and the provisions of Section 11A of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 would be applicable. Aggrieved

by this order, the present appeal has been filed by the

appellant.

4. We have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has

taken us to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act,

2013 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

10.09.2024

in the case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project

Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation v. Mahesh and others1.

6. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has

contended that Section 11A of the Act, 1894 granted a

period of two years from the date of publication of the

declaration under Section 6 for passing of an award.

However, this period has been reduced to one year under

Section 25 of the Act, 2013.

7. The issue before this Court is whether the reduced period of

time would be applicable to the present case or not. It would

be necessary to note Sections 24 and Section 25 of the Act,

2013.

24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), -

(a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2022) 2 SCC 772

10.09.2024

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

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

8. Section 25 of the Act, 2013 stipulates that the Collector shall

make an award within twelve months from the date of

publication of the declaration under Section 19. Section 19

of the Act, 2013 corresponds to Section 6 of the Act, 1894.

In such circumstances, the period for passing of the award

10.09.2024

would have to be calculated from the date of declaration

under Section 6 of the Act, 1894.

9. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 provides two eventualities.

Firstly, where an award has not been passed under Section

11 of the Act, 1894 by the time Act, 2013 has come into

force. Secondly, where an award has been passed under

Section 11 of the Act by the time Act, 2013 has come into

force.

10. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that no award has

been passed by 01.01.2014 by the Act 2013 come into

force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Executive Engineer referred to supra, considered a similar

situation and had held that Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013

would bring the provisions of Section 25 into the ambit of

any acquisition process, where the award had not been

passed by 01.01.2014. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment,

which sets down this principle, reads as follows:

"25.Section 25 is a rule of procedure immediately following Section 24 and a part of fasciculus of "all the provisions", from Sections 25 to 30, "relating to determination of compensation".

Hence, the expression "all the provisions relating to the determination of compensation" under the 2013 Act will encompass Section 25 of the 2013 Act."

10.09.2024

11. In view of the authoritative declaration of the law by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must be held that the award in

the present case should have been passed by 01.01.2015.

As the award was passed on 29.12.2015, beyond the

period stipulated under Section 25, acquisition

proceedings have lapsed.

12. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the

award passed by the third respondent bearing Rc.B2/537/

2013 award No.14/2015 dt.29.12.2015, leaving it open to

the respondents to take appropriate steps for initiating

fresh acquisition process, if required. No costs.