THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012 Dated:18-07-2014
Between:
The General Manager (Planning), O/o the P.G.M., Hyderabad Telecom District, BSNL Bhavan, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad - 50063 ... PETITIONER AND S. Sunandan Reddy @ R. Lakshminarayana Reddy and two others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 OF 2012
ORDER:
This revision is filed against the order dated 10-09-2012 passed by the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P No. 53 of 2007 in O.P No. 94 of 1991.
The facts that gave rise to the revision are as under: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of about 13486 sq. mtrs of land at Adarshnagar of the Hyderabad city. They filed declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) in respect of the said land. On processing the same, the Special Officer and Competent Authority passed an order dated 23-12-1983 holding that an extent of 8812.78 sq. mtrs is in excess of ceiling limit and that an extent of 3663.91 sq. yards is retainable area. The said order became final.
The petitioner herein approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh for acquisition of the land from respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the purpose of extension of a telephone exchange. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the LA Act’) was published on 25-08-1996. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. In the context of passing award, the Special Officer is said to have informed the Land Acquisition Officer i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, that award can be passed in respect of non-surplus area, whereas the determination of compensation for the surplus land shall await further proceedings. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent passed an award dated 30-05-1989 in respect of a non-surplus land of 3363.91 sq. yards fixing the market value at Rs.325/- per sq. yard, and one-third thereof was deducted since the area was acquired in bulk. Solatium at 30%, additional market value and interest provided for under the Act were also awarded.
At that stage, writ petitions came to be filed in relation to the proceedings under the LA Act. Ultimately, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.P No. 94 of 1991 before the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 18 of the LA Act seeking enhancement of compensation. Through its judgment dated 31-03-1989, the trial Court enhanced the compensation, by fixing the market value @ Rs.1,000/- per sq. yard. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed C.C.C.A No. 138 of 1999 seeking further enhancement at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq. yard. The 3rd respondent on the other hand filed C.C.C.A No. 170 of 2001 challenging the enhancement. Through its common judgment dated 19-06-2006, a Division Bench of this Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land, to Rs.1,800 per sq. yard.
The petitioner filed S.L.P No. 860 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the common judgment passed by this Court in C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of 2001 mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to it under Section 3(b) of the LA Act. The S.L.P was dismissed on 19-03-2007 and the review filed in it was also dismissed.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed E.P No. 53 of 2007 to recover the amount covered by the Award, as modified in appeals, together with statutory benefits. Certain amounts were paid at various points of time. A calculation memo was filed indicating the amount, which according to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is payable to them. The petitioner filed a counter as well as calculation memo opposing the figures furnished by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The principal contention urged by the petitioner was that though the land is non-surplus in nature, it is governed by the provisions of the ULC Act and that no statutory benefits are extendable to it.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that once the land was treated as non-surplus and an award was passed under Section 11 of the LA Act, all the benefits provided for under that Act are available to them.
Through the order under revision, the executing Court allowed the E.P holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.3,73,47,283/-. Hence, the revision.
Sri R.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the surplus land as well as the non-surplus land held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquired for the benefit of the petitioner and since both the bits were dealt with under the ULC Act, the benefits such as, solatium and additional market value are not payable for them. He contends that even in respect of non-
surplus land, Section 26 of the ULC Act becomes relevant and that the executing Court was not justified in allowing the E.P.
Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that from the inception, the 3rd respondent maintained a clear distinction between the surplus land on the one hand, and non-surplus land on the other hand and only on being informed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the ULC Act, that an Award under the LA Act came to be passed in respect of the non-surplus land. He submits that this very ground was raised by the petitioner in the SLP filed against the common judgment of this Court in C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of 2001, and one it was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is not open to them to repeat the same contention in the execution proceedings.
It is not in dispute that the land that was acquired from respondent Nos.1 and 2 comprised of two categories, namely, surplus land and non-surplus land, under the ULC Act. The vesting of surplus land in the Government would take place on issuance and publication of notices. The manner in which the surplus land was dealt with, is not before this Court. This Court is concerned only with the non-surplus land, which, the executing Court referred to as ‘protected land’.
Once the Special Officer and Competent Authority declares a particular area as within the ceiling limits prescribed under the ULC Act, the declarant is entitled to use it as per his wishes. Hardly any restrictions can be placed. Section 26 of the ULC Act is only to the effect that in case the owner of such non-surplus land intends to sell or othewise transfer it, the State Government shall have the first option to purchase it, at the market value. By its very nature, the option provided for under Section 26 comes into play only when the owner of the land expresses intention to sell it. It was not even alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressed their intention to sell it. Therefore, the question of the State Government choosing to exercise its option to purchase it does not arise. At any rate, the petitioner does not figure anywhere in the picture in a situation contemplated under Section 26 of the ULC Act. It is ultimately for the State Government, not for the Land Acquisition Officer to take a decision under Section 26 of the ULC Act.
The petitioner is under a misconception that even where the land is acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, Section 26 of the ULC Act comes into play. One has to keep in mind, the distinction between the voluntary transfers on the one hand and involuntary transfers on the other hand. The transfer that takes place as a result of initiation of proceedings under the LA Act, is, beyond any pale of doubt, an involuntary one. The acquisition is done irrespective of the intention of the owner, and many a time, in spite of the opposition to it. Therefore, occasion to invoke Section 26 of the ULC Act, in the event of any transfer taking place as a result of acquisition by invoking the provisions of the LA Act, does not exist.
The decree passed in O.P No. 94 of 1991 is modified by this Court in common judgment dated 19-06-2006 in C.C.C.A Nos.138 of 1999 and 170 of 2001 and has assumed finality, with the dismissal of S.L.P by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In clear and categorical terms, the trial Court as well as this Court granted the relief of solatium, additional market value and interest under the relevant provisions of the LA Act. The acceptance of the contention of the petitioner by the executing Court would have the effect of reviewing, if not setting aside the order passed by this Court as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the S.L.P filed by the petitioner itself. Such a course is totally impermissible. In addition to that, the learned Presiding Officer of the executing Court has referred to several judgments in support of his conclusion that all the statutory benefits under the LA Act are extendable to non-surplus lands, acquired by the Government.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the executing Court. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th July, 2014 ks Note:
LR copy to be marked.
B/O ks