Aluri Dhanjaya Vs. Land Acquisition Officer/Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, East Division and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - on coming to know about the depositing of the compensation amount in the revenue deposits, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent on 1-3-2005 and enquired about the alleged award but the respondent failed to give award copy and on further enquiry the petitioner reliably learnt that there was no award at all and simply rs. 12. on a careful consideration of the respective stands taken by the parties and also on perusal of the records produced before this court, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that he had not received any notice under section 12(2) of the act may have to be taken as well substantiated.orderp.s. narayana, j.1. this court issued rule nisi on 27-4-2006. on 21-10-2009, the learned assistant government pleader for land acquisition was directed to produce the records.2. heard the counsel.3. the writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the award alleged to have been passed by acquiring the petitioner's lands to an extent of acs.9.26 gts. in sy. no. 52/a of nallacheruvu of tallapalliguda village, manchal mandal, ranga reddy district to the competent civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'act' for the purpose of convenience) pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005 or in the event of non-passing of award to pass fresh award by duly deducting the amount of rs. 5,000/- per acre paid to the petitioner, even though petitioner's land costs more than rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-a of the constitution of india and consequently to direct the respondents either to refer the award if any to the competent civil court or to pass fresh award for the above said lands of the petitioner by duly deducting the amount of rs. 5,000/- per acre paid to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other suitable orders.4. it is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is an agriculturist and a resident of tallapalliguda village, manchal mandal, ranga reddy district. the petitioner is the pattadar of agricultural land to an extent of acs.9.26 gts. in sy. no. 52/a of nallacheruvu village which is hamlet of tallapalliguda village, manchal mandal, ranga reddy district and eking out his livelihood by cultivating the said land by raising paddy, groundnut, cotton, vegetables etc., and there are neem, bamboo and babul trees in his land. it is also further stated that the said land is situate towards upper stream of nallacheruvu tank which is not having any ayacut lands under it and about 15 years back, the revenue authorities strengthened the bund of the tank with a view to store water to improve the water percolation and in that process whenever there were heavy rains, water level of the tank used to raise resulting in submersion of the petitioner's land for some days and they used to recede slowly and to suit the said water submersion, the petitioner had been raising paddy crop in the khariff and commercial crops in the rabi season. it is also further stated that there was talk in the village that the respondents are acquiring the lands surrounding the nallacheruvu as they are under submersion whenever there is heavy rain and water level in the tank reaching to its full capacity.5. it is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, in february 2005, the petitioner came to know that the respondents acquired the petitioner's land along with other lands surrounding the tank and passed an award granting rs. 5000/- per acre and the same is kept in the revenue deposit. it is further stated that no notification under section 4(1) of the act was published in the newspapers (local editions), no notices under sections 9 and 10 of the act were issued to the petitioner and no award enquiry also was conducted. the petitioner also had not received any notice under section 12(2) of the act. on coming to know about the depositing of the compensation amount in the revenue deposits, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent on 1-3-2005 and enquired about the alleged award but the respondent failed to give award copy and on further enquiry the petitioner reliably learnt that there was no award at all and simply rs. 5000/- per acre was granted without following the procedure under the act.6. it is also further stated that even though there was no award passed, in view of the depositing of the amount of rs. 1,49,500/- @ rs. 5000/- along with benefits per acre by the 1st respondent, the petitioner had withdrawn the amount on 1-3-2005 under protest and filed an application dated 29-3-2005 under section 18 of the act to refer the alleged award passed by the 1st respondent to the competent civil court for enhancement of the compensation as the compensation paid is too meagre and the procedure contemplated under the act had not been followed. the 1st respondent received the representation of the petitioner by affixing the seal dated 31-3-2005.7. it is also further stated that the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action on the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005 either by referring the matter to the civil court if there is any award passed by him or by passing a fresh award by paying reasonable compensation for the land of the petitioner by duly deducting the amount paid to the petitioner at the rate of rs. 5000/- per acre even after lapse of one year is putting the petitioner to unbearable suffering and irreparable loss. a statutory duty is cast upon the respondents to act in accordance with law. the petitioner's land being wet land covered under urban agglomeration, will cost more than rs. 5,00,000/- per acre whereas very meagre amount of rs. 5,000/- per acre was given and when the petitioner made an application to refer the matter to the competent civil court, no action is taken even after lapse of one year which is nothing but arbitrary exercise of the power. in such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court this court by filing the present writ petition.8. counter affidavit had been filed by the 1st respondent denying the averments. it is stated in para-3 of the that the executive engineer, i & cad, i.b. division, ranga reddy district had submitted a requisition to the district collector, ranga reddy district for acquisition of land to an extent of acs.29-30 gts. in sy. nos. 9 to 15, 33 to 52 and 124 etc., situated at nallacheruvu at tallapalliguda village of manchal mandal, for the purpose of formation of percolation tank ocb at nallacheruvu. the district collector had directed the revenue divisional officer, ranga reddy district, east division to submit land acquisition proposals for the aforesaid lands. accordingly the then revenue divisional officer, ranga reddy district, east division had submitted proposals of draft notification under section 4(1) of the act to the district collector, ranga reddy district vide letter dated 6-12-1991. after due scrutiny of the said proposals, the district collector had submitted the same to the government for approval. thereupon, the government had approved the draft notification and draft declaration on 11-10-1994 and 4-5-1995 respectively. after approval the said draft notification and draft declaration had been published in the a.p. gazette in two daily news papers and locality as required under the act as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------------s. mode of publication date of date ofno. publication of publication ofdraft notification draft declaration---------------------------------------------------------------------------1 a.p. gazette 1-11-1994 22-2-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------2 pledge daily news paper 10-12-1994 16-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------3 krishna patrika daily news paper 25-12-1994 24-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------4 substance in the locality 25-12-1994 24-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------9. it is also further stated that in view of the urgency for formation of percolation tank at nallacheruvu, enquiry under section 5-a of the act was dispensed with duly invoking urgency clause under section 17(4) of the act. thereafter, the land acquisition officer had issued notice under section 9(1) and 10 & 9(3) and 10 of the act asking the land owners to attend the award enquiry on l3-6-1995 before the land acquisition officer. the said notice under section 9(3) and 10 of the act were served on the land owners including the petitioner on 5-5-1995. all the land owners including the petitioner had attended the award enquiry and filed joint claim petition claiming compensation. the total extent of land in sy. no. 52/2 is acs.12-06 gts. as per the revenue records, the land in sy. no. 52/2 stand patta in the name of the petitioner and one m. satyanarayana reddy. one sri venkat ram reddy had filed a claim petition by producing documentary evidence i.e., agreement of sale deed dated 4-6-1989 with a request to pay compensation to an extent of acs.2-20 gts and the petitioner had claimed compensation for an extent of acs.9-26 gts. during the award enquiry both the petitioner and venkat ram reddy appeared and admitted for apportionment of compensation. after conducting the award enquiry, the land acquisition officer had passed the award on 30-4-1999 but the petitioner had not turned up to receive the compensation and hence the compensation had been kept in the revenue deposits. after a lapse of six years, the petitioner had approached the land acquisition officer arid received the compensation. thereafter the petitioner filed a petition dated 29-3-2005 before the land acquisition officer which was received by the 1st respondent on 31-3-2005 seeking reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act. as the petition filed by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, the petitioner is not entitled for any reference under section 18 of the act.10. in reply to the averments made in paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that it is true that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of acs.9-26 cents in sy. no. 52/a situae at nallacheruvu village which had been proposed for acquisition for the purpose of formation of percolation tank ocb at nallacheruvu. further, in reply to para 4 of the affidavit it is stated that after due process of law the then revenue divisional officer had passed the award on 30-4-1999 fixing the compensation at rs. 5,000/- per acre. the land acquisition officer had fixed the compensation after taking into consideration the sales statistics available in the sub-registrar relief office three years preceding the date of the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 of the act had been published in two daily news papers as required under the act as specified supra. the petitioner after receipt of the award enquiry notices had attended before the land acquisition officer and claimed compensation and hence the petitioner cannot contend that the award enquiry notices were not issued to him. the petitioner, in order to avoid acquisition of his land, had not come forward to receive the compensation. subsequently, the petitioner had received the compensation and filed a petition beyond the period of limitation seeking reference to the civil court under section 18 of the act.11. further, in reply to the averments made in para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that as the petitioner had not filed the petition within the stipulated time, the matter could not be referred to the civil court. the contention of the petitioner that the cost of his land is rs. 5 lakhs is not correct. the land acquisition officer, after taking into consideration the prevailing market value had fixed the compensation of rs. 5,000/- per acre and if the petitioner was dissatisfied with the compensation, he ought to have sought for reference as per section 18 of the act. in the aforesaid circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition had been prayed for.12. on a careful consideration of the respective stands taken by the parties and also on perusal of the records produced before this court, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that he had not received any notice under section 12(2) of the act may have to be taken as well substantiated. in the light of the same, the stand taken in the counter affidavit being unsustainable stand, it is needless to say the writ petitioner is bound to succeed and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed directing the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the competent civil court under section 18 of the act in pursuance of the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005.13. to the said extent, the writ petition is hereby allowed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. This Court issued rule nisi on 27-4-2006. On 21-10-2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to produce the records.

2. Heard the Counsel.

3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not referring the award alleged to have been passed by acquiring the petitioner's lands to an extent of Acs.9.26 gts. in Sy. No. 52/a of Nallacheruvu of Tallapalliguda village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) pursuant to the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005 or in the event of non-passing of award to pass fresh award by duly deducting the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per acre paid to the petitioner, even though petitioner's land costs more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents either to refer the award if any to the competent civil court or to pass fresh award for the above said lands of the petitioner by duly deducting the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per acre paid to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other suitable orders.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is an agriculturist and a resident of Tallapalliguda village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is the pattadar of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.9.26 gts. in Sy. No. 52/a of Nallacheruvu village which is Hamlet of Tallapalliguda village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and eking out his livelihood by cultivating the said land by raising paddy, groundnut, cotton, vegetables etc., and there are neem, bamboo and babul trees in his land. It is also further stated that the said land is situate towards upper stream of Nallacheruvu tank which is not having any ayacut lands under it and about 15 years back, the Revenue authorities strengthened the bund of the tank with a view to store water to improve the water percolation and in that process whenever there were heavy rains, water level of the tank used to raise resulting in submersion of the petitioner's land for some days and they used to recede slowly and to suit the said water submersion, the petitioner had been raising paddy crop in the Khariff and commercial crops in the rabi season. It is also further stated that there was talk in the village that the respondents are acquiring the lands surrounding the Nallacheruvu as they are under submersion whenever there is heavy rain and water level in the tank reaching to its full capacity.

5. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, in February 2005, the petitioner came to know that the respondents acquired the petitioner's land along with other lands surrounding the tank and passed an award granting Rs. 5000/- per acre and the same is kept in the Revenue Deposit. It is further stated that no notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers (local editions), no notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were issued to the petitioner and no award enquiry also was conducted. The petitioner also had not received any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. On coming to know about the depositing of the compensation amount in the Revenue Deposits, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent on 1-3-2005 and enquired about the alleged award but the respondent failed to give award copy and on further enquiry the petitioner reliably learnt that there was no award at all and simply Rs. 5000/- per acre was granted without following the procedure under the Act.

6. It is also further stated that even though there was no award passed, in view of the depositing of the amount of Rs. 1,49,500/- @ Rs. 5000/- along with benefits per acre by the 1st respondent, the petitioner had withdrawn the amount on 1-3-2005 under protest and filed an application dated 29-3-2005 under Section 18 of the Act to refer the alleged award passed by the 1st respondent to the competent Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation as the compensation paid is too meagre and the procedure contemplated under the Act had not been followed. The 1st respondent received the representation of the petitioner by affixing the seal dated 31-3-2005.

7. It is also further stated that the action of the 1st respondent in not taking action on the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005 either by referring the matter to the Civil Court if there is any award passed by him or by passing a fresh award by paying reasonable compensation for the land of the petitioner by duly deducting the amount paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre even after lapse of one year is putting the petitioner to unbearable suffering and irreparable loss. A statutory duty is cast upon the respondents to act in accordance with Law. The petitioner's land being wet land covered under Urban Agglomeration, will cost more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre whereas very meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- per acre was given and when the petitioner made an application to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court, no action is taken even after lapse of one year which is nothing but arbitrary exercise of the power. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

8. Counter affidavit had been filed by the 1st respondent denying the averments. It is stated in para-3 of the that the Executive Engineer, I & CAD, I.B. Division, Ranga Reddy District had submitted a requisition to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for acquisition of land to an extent of Acs.29-30 gts. in Sy. Nos. 9 to 15, 33 to 52 and 124 etc., situated at Nallacheruvu at Tallapalliguda village of Manchal Mandal, for the purpose of formation of Percolation Tank OCB at Nallacheruvu. The District Collector had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division to submit land acquisition proposals for the aforesaid lands. Accordingly the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division had submitted proposals of Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide letter dated 6-12-1991. After due scrutiny of the said proposals, the District Collector had submitted the same to the Government for approval. Thereupon, the Government had approved the draft notification and Draft Declaration on 11-10-1994 and 4-5-1995 respectively. After approval the said draft notification and draft declaration had been published in the A.P. Gazette in two daily news papers and locality as required under the Act as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------S. Mode of publication Date of Date ofNo. publication of publication ofDraft Notification Draft Declaration---------------------------------------------------------------------------1 A.P. Gazette 1-11-1994 22-2-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Pledge Daily News Paper 10-12-1994 16-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Krishna Patrika Daily News Paper 25-12-1994 24-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Substance in the locality 25-12-1994 24-3-1995---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. It is also further stated that in view of the urgency for formation of Percolation Tank at Nallacheruvu, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with duly invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued notice under Section 9(1) and 10 & 9(3) and 10 of the Act asking the land owners to attend the Award enquiry on l3-6-1995 before the Land Acquisition Officer. The said notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act were served on the land owners including the petitioner on 5-5-1995. All the land owners including the petitioner had attended the Award enquiry and filed joint claim petition claiming compensation. The total extent of land in Sy. No. 52/2 is Acs.12-06 gts. As per the Revenue Records, the land in Sy. No. 52/2 stand patta in the name of the petitioner and one M. Satyanarayana Reddy. One Sri Venkat Ram Reddy had filed a claim petition by producing documentary evidence i.e., agreement of sale deed dated 4-6-1989 with a request to pay compensation to an extent of Acs.2-20 gts and the petitioner had claimed compensation for an extent of Acs.9-26 gts. During the Award enquiry both the petitioner and Venkat Ram Reddy appeared and admitted for apportionment of compensation. After conducting the Award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award on 30-4-1999 but the petitioner had not turned up to receive the compensation and hence the compensation had been kept in the Revenue Deposits. After a lapse of six years, the petitioner had approached the Land Acquisition Officer arid received the compensation. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition dated 29-3-2005 before the Land Acquisition Officer which was received by the 1st respondent on 31-3-2005 seeking reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As the petition filed by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, the petitioner is not entitled for any reference under Section 18 of the Act.

10. In reply to the averments made in paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that it is true that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of Acs.9-26 cents in Sy. No. 52/A situae at Nallacheruvu village which had been proposed for acquisition for the purpose of formation of Percolation Tank OCB at Nallacheruvu. Further, in reply to para 4 of the affidavit it is stated that after due process of law the then Revenue Divisional Officer had passed the award on 30-4-1999 fixing the compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation after taking into consideration the sales statistics available in the Sub-Registrar relief office three years preceding the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been published in two Daily News Papers as required under the Act as specified supra. The petitioner after receipt of the award enquiry notices had attended before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation and hence the petitioner cannot contend that the award enquiry notices were not issued to him. The petitioner, in order to avoid acquisition of his land, had not come forward to receive the compensation. Subsequently, the petitioner had received the compensation and filed a petition beyond the period of limitation seeking reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

11. Further, in reply to the averments made in para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that as the petitioner had not filed the petition within the stipulated time, the matter could not be referred to the Civil Court. The contention of the petitioner that the cost of his land is Rs. 5 lakhs is not correct. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into consideration the prevailing market value had fixed the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per acre and if the petitioner was dissatisfied with the compensation, he ought to have sought for reference as per Section 18 of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the dismissal of the Writ Petition had been prayed for.

12. On a careful consideration of the respective stands taken by the parties and also on perusal of the records produced before this Court, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that he had not received any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act may have to be taken as well substantiated. In the light of the same, the stand taken in the counter affidavit being unsustainable stand, it is needless to say the writ petitioner is bound to succeed and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed directing the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act in pursuance of the application of the petitioner dated 29-3-2005.

13. To the said extent, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.