HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4846 of 2014 Date: 18.11.2014 Between:
Smt Gambeeram Visalakshi w/o. Satya Murthy, Aged 41 years, r/o.Alturi Village of Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and two others.
… Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (L.A.) Department, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4846 of 2014 ORDER:
Petitioners claim to be the owners of land to an extent of Ac.0.91 cents in Sy.No.497/1A, Ac.3.42 cents in Sy.No.497/1A and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.497/1A, respectively, in Alturi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. These lands are acquired for the purpose of excavation of 1R Minor and 1R sub- minor of 28L distributory of SFC of Somasila Project. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and culminated in passing of award No.8/07-08 dated 05.06.2007. On the same day compensation was paid to the petitioners under protest. Immediately, on 11.06.2007, petitioners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Civil Court. In support of their contention that the application was filed in time, extract of the register maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer is filed, which shows the receipt of such application on 11.06.2007. Contending that no reference is made inspite of application is filed under Section 18 of the Act, the writ petition is filed.
2. Written instructions furnished to the learned Government Pleader would show that the factum of filing an application under Section 18 of the Act is not in dispute. However, the Land Acquisition Officer informs the Government Pleader that on receipt of application under Section 18 of the Act, an order was passed rejecting the request for enhancement of compensation. However, the Land Acquisition Officer do not have any record to show that such an order was passed and communicated to the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Adusumalli parvathi and another vs. The Special Tahsildar and the Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue
[1]
Divsiion, Collectorate, Visakhapatnam and Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy and
[2]
another vs. Domakonda Pedda Balavva and Onr. , contends that once application is filed under Section 18 of the Act for reference, the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to refer the claim to the Civil Court and he has no discretion to refer or not to refer.
4. Except contending that rejection order was passed, no material is placed to show that such rejection was, in fact, passed and communicated to the petitioners. Therefore, as on today, there is no material on record to show that an order of rejection was passed. Be that as it may, bare look at the provision contained in Section 18 of the Act would show that once an application is made within the time provided therein seeking enhancement of compensation, it is mandatory for the Collector to refer the issue to the Civil Court for determination of the entitlement for enhancement of the compensation.
5. However, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the compensation was paid much prior to passing of award and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that immediately after the receipt of the compensation on protest, an application was filed for enhancement is not correct.
6. According to the Sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the Act, an application for enhancement of compensation can be filed within six weeks from the date of award if in the presence of the land lossor an award was passed and in other cases, within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of Collector’s award, whichever period first expires. From the reading of relevant provisions, it is clear that time limit for seeking enhancement of compensation is not linked to date of payment of compensation. By referring to any of these provisions, it cannot be said that request for reference is not made within the time.
7. I n Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“…… He acts as a court and is required to make a judicial order. He cannot ignore the objections and the demand of the person interested for reference of the matter to the Civil Court. He has a duty to decide and say by an order in writing that there was some reason for not referring the matter to the Civil Court, against which order, the aggrieved claimant (person interested) will have a right to move a higher or superior court in revision, if not under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ”
8. In Adusumalli Parvathi (supra), the learned single Judge of this Court held as under:
“….. The party need not wait for a reference under Section 18 till the dispute is resolved by the civil Court. In fact regardless of such a reference of a dispute for adjudication under Sec.30 of the Act, reference application has to be entertained under Sec.18 of the Act. As the petitioners filed application seeking reference under sec. 18 of the Act in time, the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to refer the same to the civil Court. The land Acquisition Officer has got no jurisdiction to stall the said Sec. 18 reference application till the dispute is resolved by the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Once the application under Sec.18 of the Act is filed and the same is found to be in time, there is no other alternative for the Land Acquisition Officer except referring the matter under Sec. 18 of the Act to the civil Court regardless of the fact of existence of a dispute and pendency of the same under Sec.30 of the Act.”
9. In view of the principles of law referred to above and in the facts of this case, the action of the Land Acquisition Officer/ Collector in not referring the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation to the Civil Court is erroneous and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take immediate steps to refer the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation to the competent Civil Court, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 18.11.2014 Kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4846 of 2014 Date: 18.11.2014 kkm
[1] 1994 (3) ALT 114
[2] 1996 (1) ALD 186 (D.B.)