THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.19764 of 2010 Between:
P. Sita Devi PETITIONER AND
1. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) GAIL (India) Limited, A.V. Appa Rao Road, Rajahmundry -533 103, East Godavari District, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the respondents in withholding the crop compensation.
2. Heard Sri P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Bhaskar Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner, late Sri Palepu Krishna Murthy purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents situated in Sy.No.175/2 of Madupalli Village, Inavilli Mandal, E.G. District by way of a registered document bearing No.648, dated 11.02.1981. He passed away on 05.06.2005. The laying of pipeline by respondents from Muktheswaram to Konaseema Power Plant at Devarapalli through a part of the said land caused damage to the standing crop and trees and the respondent-authorities determined the compensation as Rs.1,36,953/- with interest, in the month of September, 2005. The petitioner made a representation on 07.01.2010, requesting to pay the same but the 1st respondent-Special Deputy Collector (LA) GAIL, vide letter in ref.SA/SDC/GAIL/39/2002, dated 11.01.2010 declined to consider the said request on the ground of pendency of O.S.No.14 of 2003. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 14.02.2010 and the 1st respondent got issued a reply on 28.02.2003, turning down the request of the petitioner.
4. Challenging the said action of the respondents in withholding the crop compensation as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently seeking a direction for payment of the said compensation, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit, deposed by the 1st respondent herein, has been filed, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. It is stated in the said counter that the land in R.S.No.175/2 to an extent of Ac.0.33 cents situated at Madupalli Village, East Godavari District was acquired for laying pipeline for which the GAIL is required to pay compensation for loss of standing crops and trees in addition to the compensation of 1/10th of the land value and the respondent authorities estimated the same as Rs.1,36,953/-. It is further averred in the said counter that when the respondents were about to disburse the same, certain objections were raised with regard to the entitlement, including the pendency of O.S.No.14 of 2003, which is renumbered as O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada. It is also stated that on 13.10.2005 and 22.10.2005 one Smt. Palepu Manikyamba W/o late Palepu Sree Ramachandra Murthy filed complaints before the 1st respondent, claiming ownership of the land in dispute stating that she is the Class-I legal heir of late Palepu Sree Ramachandra Murthy and the land in R.S.No.175/2 of Madupalli Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District is the self acquired property of her husband. The counter further states that she got issued a legal notice to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, who received the same on 22.10.2005. The said fact was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide L.Dis.(B)3149/2005, dated 18.11.2005. The counter further states that one Sri P. Krishna Mehar S/o. Sri Bhoga Raju gave a representation to the 1st respondent on 24.08.2005, making a claim and asking to deposit the amount to the credit of O.S.No.14 of 2003. The Counter justifies the impugned action of withholding compensation during the pendency of the civil dispute.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned action on the part of the respondent-authorities in withholding the determined compensation amount is highly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2003, which was renumbered as O.S.No.87 of 2007 has no right to claim the crop compensation, which was determined in the year 2005. It is further contended that only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner the said suit has been instituted.
7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the questions that arise for consideration of this Court are – whether the respondent-authorities are justified in withholding the compensation amount and whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The material available on record clearly and categorically reveals that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum of usage of the subject land for the purpose of laying pipeline by the respondents and the determination of compensation amount in the year 2005. The legislation, which is relevant for the purpose of dealing with the issue in the present writ petition, is the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). As per Section 10 of the said Act the competent authority is empowered to determine the compensation. In the instant case, the 1st respondent- competent authority determined the compensation by way of proceedings Ref.No.SA/SDC/GAIL/39/2002/a, dated 29.05.2005.
9. As per Section 11 (5) of the Act if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated and the decision of the District Judge thereon shall be final; Section 11 (1) of the Act obligates the Central Government, State Government or Corporation to deposit the amount of compensation determined under Section 10 with the competent authority; and Section 11(2) stipulates that if the amount of compensation is not deposited within the time prescribed under sub-section (1), the amount of compensation so determined under Section 10 carries interest @ 6% per annum till the date of actual deposit.
10. In the instant case, there is every justification for the respondents for withholding the compensation amount in view of the dispute with regard to the title to the property and at the same time there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent-authorities in keeping the amount with them. The respondent-authorities instead of keeping the amount with them since 2005 ought to have deposited the same with the District Judge by referring the matter for adjudication. But the respondent-authorities failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 11 (5) of the Act. The said action, in the considered opinion of this Court, is highly unreasonable, preposterous and reprehensible. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the action of the respondent- authority in not adhering to the provisions of the Legislation is liable to be deprecated.
11. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the nature of controversy, and in view of the mandatory provisions of law as referred to above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to refer the dispute to the decision of the District Judge and deposit the compensation amount with the concerned District Judge along with the interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of determination i.e., 29.12.2005 till the date of deposit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
9th June, 2014 JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
Js.