THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23450 of 2014 Dated : 14.10.2014 Between:
Sirigiri Ramakrishna S/o.Pedda Peraiah, Aged 55 yrs, Occu : Cultivation, R/o.D.No.4-16, Karavadhi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.
.. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. & another .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23450 of 2014 ORDER :
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 19.02.2008 to acquire large extent of land including the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.0-22 Cents in Survey No.711/3B of D.Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, for the purpose of laying of canal of Kandula Obula Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project. On 15.07.2008 an award was passed acquiring the land. The award refers to consent given by the farmers for such acquisition. This writ petition is instituted by the petitioner contending that award could not have been passed on 15.07.2008 without notice or opportunity to the petitioner as the father of the petitioner Sirigiri Pedda Peraiah, died on 10.06.2003 and the question of father of the petitioner consenting for passing of award does not arise. Therefore, the very fact of passing of consent award was illegal. The petitioner was not aware of passing of consent award. No compensation is paid to the petitioner and the petitioner continued to be in possession till 06.03.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire exercise of passing of award and acquiring the land of the petitioner is vitiated on account of the fact that against a dead person a consent award could not have been passed. If compensation is not paid or possession is not taken before 01.01.2014, in accordance with provisions contained in Section 24 of Act 30 of 2013, the acquisition proceedings becomes null and void and the competent authority has to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land.
3. However, from the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, G.R.P. Division-2, Ongole, to Special Collector (L.A) Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole, dated 07.03.2013 filed in the material paper of writ petition paper book, it would disclose that the petitioner has agreed for handing over possession of land and for undertaking excavation work on the assurance given by the land acquisition officer that compensation would be paid at market value for the land acquired and also compensation to the standing crops and Eucalyptus trees that were standing on the land. Such assurance was given to him on 06.02.2013 which compelled him to concede for granting possession and for undertaking excavation work, but so far no compensation is paid.
4. Even according to the averments in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, admittedly compensation is not paid to the petitioner as required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act (repealed). Therefore, the award lapses in view of the fact that the petitioner was neither paid compensation nor possession of the land was taken in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pune Medical Corporation Vs Harakchand Misirimal
[1]
Solanki . Thus, the entire exercise becomes illegal. However, the
acquisition was for public purpose. The petitioner consented for taking possession and has handed over possession and agreed for undertaking excavation work and accordingly excavation work was undertaken and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the canal was already laid. The learned counsel for petitioner therefore, submits that if appropriate compensation is paid in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 within a reasonable time, he would be satisfied and he would not press for going for fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with Act 30 of 2013 for Ac.0-22 Cents of land acquired by the respondents, on the standing crops and Eucalyptus trees. Such approach of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner is greatly appreciated.
5. In view of the willingness of the petitioner for receiving compensation, even though the award is vitiated on several aspects and in view of the assurance given by the Special Collector, Land Acquisition on 06.03.2013 which compelled the petitioner to agree for taking possession and for laying of canal, the 2nd respondent is directed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner on the land acquired, for the standing crops and the Eucalyptus trees as per Act 30 of 2013, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner should be given opportunity of hearing before compensation is determined. In case of delay in determination and payment of compensation as ordered above, within the next eight weeks, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest from 06.03.2013 till the amount is paid. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 14th October, 2014 Rds
[1] 2014 (3) SCC 183