IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26665 of 2013
Between:
G. Munikrishnaiah .. Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26665 of 2013
ORDER:
Land to an extent of Ac. 1.09 cents in Sy.No.323/7 and land to an extent of Ac. 1.04 cents in Sy.No.322/7 of Siddamagraharam Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District, was assigned to the petitioner in the year 1997. The said lands were resumed by the proceedings Roc.No.B/226/07, dated 30.08.2008, for public purpose. N o ex gratia was paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in payment of ex gratia, the petitioner instituted W.P.No.26614 of 2012. The petitioner sought for a prayer to grant him ex gratia of Rs.5,85,515/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of resumption till the date of payment. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, on behalf of the Government, it was represented that an enquiry was ordered by the District Collector directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, to enquire into the genuineness of the certificates with regard to DKT Pattas and appropriate steps would be taken after the report of the enquiry was submitted. In view of the same, this Court disposed of the writ petition by order, dated 12.09.2012, directing the respondents to determine and pay the ex gratia payable to the petitioner within a period of two months from that date. Alleging that the order of this Court was not complied, the petitioner filed C.C.No.1058 of 2013. When the Contempt Case was taken up for consideration, on behalf of the respondents, it was reported to this Court that a n ex gratia amount of Rs.5,85,515/- was determined as payable to the petitioner on account of resumption of the lands earlier assigned to him and was drawn by way of a demand draft on 03.07.2013. A contention was urged on behalf of the petitioner that interest on such amount was not determined and, therefore, the payment does not amount to compliance. This Court observed that since there was no direction for payment of interest, it could not be said that the respondents violated the orders of this Court and closed the Contempt Case.
2. This writ petition is instituted by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of ex gratia determined from the date of resumption till the date of actual payment i.e., 30.08.2008 to 03.07.2013. In support of his claim for interest on the amount of ex gratia determined, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Syed Yaqoob (died) per LRs Vs. Special Deputy Collector
[1]
(Land Acquisition), International Airport, Shamshabad, R.R. District .
This Court, following the Larger Bench decision wherein it was held that ex gratia is a legal obligation on the part of the Government and is not a mere gratis, directed payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment.
3. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents on the ground that since the petitioner has already sought for payment of interest in W.P.No.26614 of 2012 and this Court did not grant interest payable, the writ petition is not maintainable and the earlier order operates as res judicata. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
[2]
AND OTHERS . It is further contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue Assignment (1) Department, dated 23.12.1993, a decision is taken by the State Government to grant ex gratia on the lands assigned earlier to the assignees but resumed for public purpose, but the said order denies payment of interest on the ex gratia amount as well as solatium, etc.
4. The issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of ex gratia ?
5. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was resumed on 30.08.2008, but the ex gratia was actually paid only on 03.07.2013. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was not responsible for this inordinate delay on payment of ex gratia. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for payment of interest. On account of this inordinate delay in settlement of the ex gratia amount, for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner is made to suffer and the payment of ex gratia amount determined in the year 2008, if paid in the year 2013, on account of the factum of inflation, cannot be treated as same and, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for inordinate delay and is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum which was granted by this Court in identical circumstances in Syed Yaqoob’s case (supra 1).
6. G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue Assignment (1) Department, dated 23.12.1993, is on the issue of payment of ex gratia and holds that while paying ex gratia, the assignee is not entitled for payment of solatium and other interest as payable to private patta holder whose land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This G.O. does not deal with the situation, as obtaining in this writ petition. Here claim for interest is on account of inordinate delay in payment of ex gratia on resumption of land. I n Syed Yaqoob, this Court held payment of ex gratia is not gratis. That being so unexplained and inordinate delay certainly prejudices the claimant. Person is ousted from land he was cultivating and was left without land and was made to wait for compensation for a long time for no fault of him. Thus, working out interest for the delayed period at least remedies the suffering to some extent. It is to be noted that as part of social welfare measure, land was allotted to petitioner. By resuming said land for public purpose, he is ousted from the said land and made a landless person.
7. Though the petitioner has claimed interest along with the ex gratia amount in the earlier writ petition, by the time that writ petition was taken up for consideration, the entitlement and quantum of ex gratia was not determined and the issue of entitlement for payment of ex gratia on the lands resumed by the Government was under enquiry by the District Collector. It was stated on behalf of respondents that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was asked to enquire into, would be submitted within a week to the District Collector and on receipt of said report, appropriate action would be taken. Therefore, recording the said submission, that writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the matter on merits and directing the respondents to determine the ex gratia payable within a period of two months. There was no discussion on the claim of the petitioner for interest since the claim of entitlement of the petitioner and the quantum were not finalized.
8. In M. NAGABHUSHANA’s case (supra 2) on its earlier occasion, the claim of the petitioner that the blocks of land were outside the purview of Framework Agreement was specifically contested and was rejected by the High Court, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. In a subsequent round, same prayer was sought. Therefore, dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court held that the subsequent claim was barred by constructive res judicata and the claim was not maintainable. In the instant case, the quantification of compensation was not decided by the time the writ petition was disposed of though there was an admission on the part of the respondents that the petitioner was entitled to receive ex gratia. Therefore, the Court has not decided the matter on merits and left it to the authorities to take a decision. Though the authorities did grant ex gratia as originally claimed by the petitioner, the authorities did not deal with the issue of payment of interest for the period of delay in making the payment of ex gratia.
9. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader both on the issue of res judicata as well as on the non-entitlement of an assignee to claim interest as per G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue Assignment (1) Department, dated 23.12.1993.
10. Therefore, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the ex gratia paid to the petitioner from the date of resumption of the land i.e., 30.08.2008 till the date of actual payment i.e., 03.07.2013 at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondents are directed to work out the amount payable as per the above directions and shall pay the same within the period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 20th January, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26665 of 2013
Date: 20th January, 2014 KL
[1] 2012 (3) ALD 363
[2] (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 408