Antharam Sundaraiah and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Antharam Sundaraiah and ors. vs State of A.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 20, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/424985

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/424985
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
Decided On: Feb 20, 2004
Case Number: WP No. 18244 of 2002
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Property - land acquisition - Sections 11 and 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - default in part payment of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) - reference to Civil Court sought by aggrieved refused arbitrarily for want of funds - conduct of LAO indicates his irreverence to rule of law - authoriti...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Antharam Sundaraiah and ors.

Advocate M. Laxman, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and ors.

Advocate Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18
Reported In: 2004(2)ALD499; 2004(3)ALT360

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...........of the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the request on the ground that the entire compensation was not paid. petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in this regard.4. a counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. the fact that the lands of the petitioners were acquired and part of the compensation payable to the petitioners 1 to 3 is withheld is not disputed. it is however, stated that the amount could not be paid since the irrigation department did not make the funds available. refusal to refer the matter to civil court is sought to be justified.5. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned government pleader for land acquisition.6. the respondents have acquired an extent of ac.21-36 guntas of land for the purpose of establishing irrigation tank. notifications under section 4(1) and (6) of the land acquisition act (for short 'the act') were published and award enquiry was undertaken. after considering the claims of the respective land holders, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 27-11-1995. he does not appear to have realized that the question of pronouncing an award would arise if only necessary funds are available and the compensation as determined under the award is offered to the land holders. he proceeded to pronounce the award, though sufficient funds were not made available. he awarded a sum of rs. 2,57,356/- to petitioners 1 to 3 but had paid only rs. 70,690/-. though almost a decade elapsed, the balance of rs. 1,86,666-00 remains unpaid. it is not as if the government is starved of funds and did not spend any amount in the interregnum. except indifference and lack of respect for rule of law, there does not any exist any other justification for such a blatant violation of law. strictly speaking, the award, insofar as it relates to the lands of petitioners 1 to 3, can be said to be non-existent.7. the 2nd respondent did not stop with this, in his total disrespect to the settled principles of law. when.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. This case discloses either the indifference or lack of basic knowledge on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad R.R. District, who passed the Award dated 27.11.1995 in respect of the lands of the petitioners.

2. By a notification dated 18-5-1994, an extent of Ac.21-36 guntas of land of Naskal Village of Pargi Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belonging to the petitioners and certain others was acquired for the purpose of formation of irrigation tank. An Award was passed on 27.11.1995 by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition officer, the 2nd respondent herein. He fixed the market value at Rs. 7,000/- per acre and awarded different amounts to various land holders. Petitioners 1 to 3 were awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,356/-.

3. So far as the Petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, the 2nd respondent paid only a sum of Rs. 70,690/- and did not pay the balance of Rs. 1,87,666-00. He paid the entire compensation to Petitioners 4 to 11. All the petitioners submitted applications to the 2nd respondent to refer the matter to Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Through memo dated 13.8.2002, another incumbent of the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the request on the ground that the entire compensation was not paid. Petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in this regard.

4. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3. The fact that the lands of the petitioners were acquired and part of the compensation payable to the Petitioners 1 to 3 is withheld is not disputed. It is however, stated that the amount could not be paid since the irrigation department did not make the funds available. Refusal to refer the matter to Civil Court is sought to be justified.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

6. The respondents have acquired an extent of Ac.21-36 guntas of land for the purpose of establishing irrigation tank. Notifications under Section 4(1) and (6) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') were published and award enquiry was undertaken. After considering the claims of the respective land holders, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 27-11-1995. He does not appear to have realized that the question of pronouncing an award would arise if only necessary funds are available and the compensation as determined under the award is offered to the land holders. He proceeded to pronounce the award, though sufficient funds were not made available. He awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,356/- to petitioners 1 to 3 but had paid only Rs. 70,690/-. Though almost a decade elapsed, the balance of Rs. 1,86,666-00 remains unpaid. It is not as if the Government is starved of funds and did not spend any amount in the interregnum. Except indifference and lack of respect for rule of law, there does not any exist any other justification for such a blatant violation of law. Strictly speaking, the award, insofar as it relates to the lands of Petitioners 1 to 3, can be said to be non-existent.

7. The 2nd respondent did not stop with this, in his total disrespect to the settled principles of law. When petitioners submitted the applications seeking reference, he has tried to put premium on his own blatant illegality and he refused to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, on the ground that an amount of Rs. 1,87,666-00 is yet to be paid. There cannot be a better example of inefficiency, indifference and lack of regard for rule of law than this. It is rather sad that an officer, sitting right in the capital of the State resorts to such blatant illegalities and all his superiors digest these violations of laws. The petitioners had to approach this Court seeking remedy. Even filing of writ petition does not appear to have had an impact on the respondents. They have not only deprived some of the petitioners the compensation awarded by the 2nd respondent himself, but also have denied the right of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act.

8. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing that

(a) the 2nd respondent shall pay the balance of compensation to the Petitioners 1 to 3 by 31st March, 2004 duly calculating the interest, as though the award is passed on the date of making such payment, in respect of the balance amount of Rs. 1,86,666/-.

(b) in case the respondents fall to pay the compensation as directed, they shall be under an obligation to restore the proportionate extent of land of Petitioners 1 to 3 and pay damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre from the date of taking possession.

(c) the 2nd respondent shall refer the matter to Civil Court in respect of the claims of Petitioners 4 to 11 forthwith and take further steps as regards Petitioners 1 to 3 in the first week of April, after compliance with the conditions (a) and (b).

(d) The respondents shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioners towards costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2004 Same Parties Antharam Sundaraiah and ors. vs State of A.P. and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge L. Narasimha Reddy, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18

Property;Civil