Sarva Reddy and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit Priya Darshini Jurala Project

Sarva Reddy and ors. vs The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit Priya Darshini Jurala Project

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 18, 1992

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/433739

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/433739
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: M.N. Rao and ;Reddeppa Reddi, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 18, 1992
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2112 of 1988
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- ALL INDIA SERVICES ACT, 1951.Sections 8 & 11 & A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961, Rule 5: [V.V.S. Rao, G. Yethirajulu & G. Bhavani Prasad, JJ] Refusal by Landlord to receive rent - Deposit of rent in Court - Held, A tenant has the option to take recourse to Section 8 in case of refusal ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12(2), 18, 18(1) and 18(2); Andhra Pradesh State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1959; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarva Reddy and ors.

Advocate B. Purushotham Reddy, Adv.

Respondent

The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit Priya Darshini Jurala Project

Advocate Govt. Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12(2), 18, 18(1) and 18(2); Andhra Pradesh State Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1959; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 1993(2)ALT185

Excerpt

.....to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will..........petitioners were present in the open court when the award was pronounced, the request has-to be made by them only within six weeks from the date of the award, and as the same was made beyond time, rightly it was not entertained.4. on the admitted facts stated supra, we are of the view that the writ petition must succeed. it is incumbent on the district collector to issue immediate notice of his award under section 12(2) of the act 'to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.' under section 18(1) of the act any person, who is interested but has not accepted the award, may make a written request to the collector asking him to refer the matter for determination by the court. sub-section (2) of section 18 lays down that the application shall state the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. provisos (a) and (b) to sub-section (2), which are relevant, read as follows :-'provided that every such application shall be made-(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the collector's award.(b) in other cases, within two months from the date of service of the notice from collector under section 12, sub-section (2).'5. the order of rejection dated 10-12-1987 does not allude to the fact that the petitioners were personally present. the counter affidavit says that 'the award proceedings were pronounced in open court on 25-7-1985'. and from this it is not possible for us to draw the inference that the petitioners were in fact present. we do not want to go into the disputed fact-whether the petitioners had advance notice about the date of pronouncement of the award. what is indisputable is that under section 12(2) of the act notices were served by the collector on the petitioners on 25-7-1985 and when such a course of action was adopted, the petitioners are entitled to avail of the extended.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.N. Rao, J.

1. The thirty five petitioners herein, mostly belonging to Scheduled Caste and Back ward Classes, are agriculturists owning very small extents of land, aggregation Ac. 29-00, which was acquired by the Government for a public purpose. The award was passed by the Collector on 25-7-1985. The petitioners were served with notices of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 25-7-1985. They made written applications on 9-9-1985 under Section 18(1) of the Act requesting the Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation amount. After two years and three months, those applications were rejected on 10-12-1987 on the ground that they were received 'with a delay of five days'. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

2. At the interlocutory stage, after hearing both sides, a direction was given to the respondent-Special Deputy Collector, to refer the petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Civil Court for adjudication. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim direction, the matter was referred to the Civil Court and in O.P. No. 387 of 1987 and batch the learned Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, made an award.

3. Sri. B. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that when once notices were served on the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Act, within two months from the date of service of the notices they are entitled to require the District Collector, under Section 18(1) of the Act, to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of compensation. In opposition to this, the learned Government Pleader contends that when the petitioners were present in the open court when the award was pronounced, the request has-to be made by them only within six weeks from the date of the award, and as the same was made beyond time, rightly it was not entertained.

4. On the admitted facts stated supra, we are of the view that the writ petition must succeed. It is incumbent on the District Collector to issue immediate notice of his award under Section 12(2) of the Act 'to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.' Under Section 18(1) of the Act any person, who is interested but has not accepted the award, may make a written request to the Collector asking him to refer the matter for determination by the Court. Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 lays down that the application shall state the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. Provisos (a) and (b) to Sub-section (2), which are relevant, read as follows :-

'Provided that every such application shall be made-

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award.

(b) in other cases, within two months from the date of service of the notice from Collector under Section 12, Sub-section (2).'

5. The order of rejection dated 10-12-1987 does not allude to the fact that the petitioners were personally present. The counter affidavit says that 'the award proceedings were pronounced in open court on 25-7-1985'. And from this it is not possible for us to draw the inference that the petitioners were in fact present. We do not want to go into the disputed fact-whether the petitioners had advance notice about the date of pronouncement of the award. What is indisputable is that under Section 12(2) of the Act notices were served by the Collector on the petitioners on 25-7-1985 and when such a course of action was adopted, the petitioners are entitled to avail of the extended period of limitation provided under proviso (b) to Sub-section (2) of Section 18, namely, two months from the date of service of notice to make written request under Section 18(1) seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court. The request in this case having been made on 9-9-1985 was within the time allowed by Section 18(2) proviso Clause (b), and so the rejection of the request was clearly illegal.

6. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and quash the order of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A.Unit,Priya Darshini Jurala Project, Gadwal, dated 10-12-1987 in L.Dis. No. K/407/87. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1992 Same Parties Sarva Reddy and ors. vs The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Un... Same Subject Civil Same Judge M.N. Rao and ;Reddeppa Reddi, JJ. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12(2), 18, 18(1) and 18...

Civil