E. Ramasubbareddy Vs. State of A.P. and Others

E. Ramasubbareddy vs State of A.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 14, 1989

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/423363

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/423363
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Syed Shah Mohd Quadri, J.
Decided On: Feb 14, 1989
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 15532 of 1987
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Property - compensation - Sections 6 and 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - petitioner's land acquired after notification under Section 4 (1) - whether non payment of compensation within specified period under Section 11-A will lapse land acquisition proceeding - payment of compensation is pursuant to award and doe...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 (1), 6, 11-A, 31 and 34; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E. Ramasubbareddy

Advocate E. Subrahmanayam, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and Others

Advocate Govt. Pleader for F & P

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 (1), 6, 11-A, 31 and 34; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984
Reported In: AIR1990AP8

Excerpt

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye...........officer is not responsible for the delay in the encashment of the cheques. in these circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed .3. sri subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of enacting s. 11-a of the act is to avoid delays in payment of compensation to the claimants, if after making award', compensation is not paid, s. 11-a would be defeated, therefore, payment of compensation should also be within two years; otherwise it would amount to not passing the award within the specified time resulting in lapse of acquisition proceedings. the learned government pleader on the other land submits that delay in payment of compensation neither affects the validity of the award which is passed within the specified period nor the land acquisition proceedings.4. the short question that arises for consideration is whether for non-payment of compensation within the period specified under s. 11-a of the land acquisition act, the land acquisition proceedings lapse thereunder.5. it would be useful to read s. 11-a of the land acquisition act here :'11-a : period within which an award shall be made : (1) the collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse; provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the land acquisition (amendment) act, 1984 the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement; explanation : in computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of the court shall be excluded'. a plain reading of the section makes it clear that an obligation is imposed on the collector to make an award under s. 11 within two.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The land of the petitioner was acquired for Srisailam Project. Notification under S. 4(1) and declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on February 20, 1981. The award was passed on 15-9-1986. It is stated that cheques were issued to the petitioner for the amount of compensation. The petitioner presented the cheques in his bank. According to the petitioner, the cheques ought to have been encashed on or before 24th September, 1984 as the period of two years prescribed under S. 11-A of the Act would expire by that date. As the cheques were not cashed before that date, the petitioner submits there is no award in the eye of law and all the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act will be deemed tohave lapsed by virtue of S. 11-A of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue a fresh notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The respondents filed common counter-affidavit. It is stated that the cheques were issued on 7-9-1986. It is further stated that under S. 11-A of the Act the award has to be passed within two years of the declaration under S. 6 of the Act. In this case, the award was passed within the specified time. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have authorised the Deputy Collector to issue cheques on the State Bank of India, Rajampet. Accordingly; the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Cuddapah issued cheques on the State Bank of India, Rajampet. The petitioner should have presented the cheques in that bank for encashment but because the petitioner did not present cheques in the said bank, the Land Acquisition Officer is not responsible for the delay in the encashment of the cheques. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed .

3. Sri Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of enacting S. 11-A of the Act is to avoid delays in payment of compensation to the claimants, if after making award', compensation is not paid, S. 11-A would be defeated, therefore, payment of compensation should also be within two years; otherwise it would amount to not passing the award within the specified time resulting in lapse of acquisition proceedings. The learned Government Pleader on the other land submits that delay in payment of compensation neither affects the validity of the award which is passed within the specified period nor the land acquisition proceedings.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether for non-payment of compensation within the period specified under S. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition proceedings lapse thereunder.

5. It would be useful to read S. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act here :

'11-A : Period within which an award shall be made :

(1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse;

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement;

Explanation : In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of the Court shall be excluded'.

A plain reading of the section makes it clear that an obligation is imposed on the Collector to make an award under S. 11 within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and in a case where the declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 within a period of two years from such commencement, that is, September 24, 1984. Admittedly, in this case, the award was passed within two years from the date of declaration under S. 6 of the Act. Making of the award is complete the moment it is drawn up and signed by the Collector. Payment of compensation is pursuant to the award and does not form part of the award. This is also evident from S. 31 which provides that on making an award under S. 11, the Collector shall tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons interested or entitled thereto according to the award. It follows that not tendering payment of compensation awarded under the award would not make it incomplete. Therefore making of the award within the specified period satisfies the requirements of S. 11-A. Payment ofcompensation under the award need not be within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration to save the land acquisition proceedings from getting lapsed under that section. It is desirable to tender the payment of compensation awarded by the Collector as immediately after the award as is practicable and delay in payment of compensation should be avoided but it must be noticed here that the interest of the awardee is amply safeguarded by amended provisions of S. 34 of the Act against any possible delay in payment/deposit of compensation.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without costs having regard to the circumstances of the case. Advocate's fee Rs. 200/-.

7. Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1989 Same Parties E. Ramasubbareddy vs State of A.P. and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge Syed Shah Mohd Quadri, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 (1), 6, 11-A, 31 and ...

Property