Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Singana Subba Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010177762022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 483/2022
Between:
Mamidi Obaiah @ Obula Reddy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
WRIT APPEAL NO: 544/2022
Between:
Singana Subba Reddy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR
2
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dt: 20.09.2024
(per Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar learned counsel, appearing for
the Appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, appearing
for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition, appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
2. These Writ Appeals are being disposed of by way of a
common Judgment as they arise out of a common order and raise
similar questions of fact and law.
3. The appellants in both the Writ Appeals were owners of
land and structures which got submerged under the backwaters of
Somasila project. On account of such submersion, the lands of the
appellants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, by way of awards dated 31.07.2006. The appellants had also
received the compensation, awarded under these awards. However,
the appellants have approached this Court with the contention that the
structures belonging to appellants, which had been submerged had
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
been valued on the basis of the Standard Schedule Rates available in
the year 2002-2003 whereas the said S.S.R Rates for the year 2005-
2006 should have been applied. The appellants contended that on
account of application of the Standard Schedule Rates of 2002-2003
instead of the standard rates of 2005-06, the appellants had not been
granted proper compensation and that the awards should be modified
so that compensation is refixed on the basis of the S.S.R Rates of
2005-2006.
4. The respondents filed their counter affidavits and
contended that the compensation payable to the appellants had been
arrived at by applying the appropriate government orders, issued in
relation to the fixation of compensation and more specifically
G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003 which had directed adoption of
S.S.R Rates of 2002-2003. It was further contended that the awards
are consent awards which had been accepted by the appellants and as
such, the claims raised under the Writ Petitions are not permissible.
5. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the
contentions on both sides had dismissed the writ petitions by way of an
order dated 18.01.2022.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellants
are moved the present appeals.
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
7. Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants would contend that Section 4 read with Section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stipulates that the prevailing market
value, as on the date of notification, should be taken in to account and
the fixation of compensation on the basis of the S.S.R Rates of 2002-
2003 is a clear violation of procedure stipulated under the Act. He
would further contend that the appellants are small ryots and persons
seeking out livelihood who were unaware of their rights. He submits
that ignorance of the appellants, as to their rights cannot be taken
advantage by the official respondents who should have educated them
of their rights and given them an option of deciding whether they would
accept a consent award or would want to contest the same. He would
submit that the right of property, though not a fundamental right,
remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and as such, this Court can interfere for protecting such
constitutional rights.
8. A perusal of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge as
well as the record placed before this Court would show that the
government, while directing payment of compensation, in relation to the
submerged lands and the structures of such submerged lands, had
given certain guidelines to the Acquisition Authorities including the
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
guideline, by way of G.O.Rt.No.802, dated 30.10.2003, that valuation
of structures should be done on the basis of the S.S.R rates of 2002-
2003. The record also shows that the awards which have been passed
on 31.07.2006 were all awards passed on the basis of consent
affidavits given by the appellants. These awards would have to be
treated as consent awards.
9. The question of whether such consent awards can be
challenged subsequently had come up before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on various occasions. One of the leading cases on this issue is
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and
Ors vs. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors1. Another leading Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and
Another vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Ors 2. In both these
Judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering this question
had held that once parties have agreed under Section 11(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, for a consent award to be passed, they cannot
challenge the same subsequently.
10. In the present case, such consent had been given by the
appellants in 2006 itself and awards had been passed on the basis of
such consent given under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
(1995) 5 SCC 746
(2005) 4 SCC 264
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
11. In such circumstances, this Court is bound by the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, there is no
ground for this Court to interfere with the Judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
12. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeal are dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N,J
RJS
RRR,J & HN,J
W.A.No.483 & 544 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL Nos.483 and 544 of 2022
Dt: 20.09.2024
RJS
