Allowed

Aaduri Peda Veera Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2022WP/39942/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition regarding compensation for indigo vats overlooked in the 2007 Somasila Project land acquisition award. The Single Judge distinguished a previous Division Bench decision by noting the absence of disputed facts or dubious inspections here. Relying on uncontroverted inspection data, the Court fixed compensation amounts and granted interest, directing the Responde

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; Respondents directed to pay Rs.52,43,999/- to Petitioners 1-7 and Rs.22,27,500/- to Petitioner 8 with 9% interest from August 23, 2017.

Aaduri Peda Veera Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

W.P.No.39942 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

“..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not making necessary proposals for payment of compensation for the Indigo Vats which are situated in the land acquired for Somasila Project i.e. an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents in Sy.No.19/1 and in an extent of Ac. 0.16 cents in Sy.No.68 of Jonnavaram Village, Reach No.IX, Atluru Mandal, inspite of proposals vide Ref.No.C/151/2007 dt. 17.12.2016 and Ref.No.C/151/ 2007 dt. 23.08.2017 made by the 3rd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to make necessary proposals for payment of compensation as per the said proposals of the 3rd respondent and pass…”

¶6

This Court has heard Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that they were not paid compensation for the Indigo Vats that were

¶8

¶9

existing on their site and therefore, the writ is filed for the same.

¶10

Learned counsel submits in all fairness that land measuring Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.19/1 and 0.16 cents in Sy.No.68 of Jonnavaram Village was notified for acquisition. The acquisition was completed, but the petitioners did not accept the compensation and raised a demand for payment of the compensation for the Indigo Vats. Basing on the representation of the petitioners, the site was inspected in 2016 and the value was fixed for the Indigo Vats. This value was later reduced as per the subsequent letter dated 23.08.2017. Learned counsel submits that neither in the draft notification nor in the draft declaration, the Indigo Vat was published when the petitioners realized that they were not paid compensation for the rates they made a protest and a representation. The same was accepted and inspection was ordered to be conducted. Their value was also determined. Learned counsel therefore submits that as the facts are clear and inspection revealed the existence of the Indigo Vats, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as per the proposal dated 17.12.2016.

¶11

¶12

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader raises a question of delay and points out that the notification was published in November, 2007 and declaration was published in January, 2008. He argues that writ petition was filed in 2017 claiming compensation. He also stated that the award is a consent award and that the 8^th petitioner alone has accepted the compensation. It is further admitted that petitioners 1 to 7 did not receive the compensation and raised a dispute. It is also pointed out that at the stage of the draft declaration or the draft notification, no objections were received. It is also stated that after passing of the order, the matter was referred to the authority under section 64 of the New Act and matters are pending before the authority. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. The last submission of the learned Government Pleader is that the order of the Division Bench in WA.Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. He points out that the Division Bench held that there cannot be two awards for one property. He points out that the Division Bench also clearly stated that if the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the Indigo

¶13

¶14

Vats in the award, they had to take steps to move the District Collector under section 18 of the old Act. Relying upon all of these, it is argued that since the writ appeal also relates to Somasila Project, the order of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and that the writ is not maintainable.

¶15

In rejoinder, Sri Lakshminarayana relies upon a memo he has filed along with the pleadings in the writ petition out of which Writ Appeal Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 arise. He points out that in the order of the single Judge against which the Writ Appeals were filed seriously disputed facts were there and the inspection itself was doubted. He also points out that in that case, the writ petitioners accepted the compensation. Therefore, he submits that as the facts in the present case are very different, the writ petition is maintainable. He argues that as all the data/facts are present and available, this Court itself can decide the same. With regard to the delay, he points out that for petitioners 1 to 7 the award was passed only on March, 2015 and thereafter protest was lodged leading to the inspections in December, 2017. Therefore, he submits that there is no „inordinate‟ delay as alleged.

¶16

¶17

After hearing both the learned counsel, the facts that clearly emerge are that the petitioners 1 to 7 did not accept the compensation that was fixed for the lands in Sy.No.19/1 and 68 of Jonnavaram Village. In case of 8^th petitioner, the award was passed on 04.03.2009, but for the other petitioners award was only passed on 20.03.2015. It is also clear from the record that thereafter the petitioners had submitted a representation which lead to the inspection. Letter dated 17.12.2016 addressed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition to the Special Collector Land Acquisition is very clear. It is clearly mentioned in the said letter that the Indigo Vats are existing in Sy.No.19/1 and 68. He also submits that he has personally inspected the land in which the Indigo Vats are existing along with another Executive Engineer and noticed their presence. On reference, the value was also estimated. He submitted PV proposals in respect of the two Indigo Vats for a sum of Rs.69,92,000/-. This was subsequently reduced by 25% stating that these are old structures etc. This can be found in the letter dated 23.08.2017 addressed by the Special Collector, Land Acquisition. The value of the Indigo Vats was thus reduced

¶18

¶19

by Rs.17,43,000/- and the final value of Rs.52,43,999/- was assessed.

¶20

These facts make it abundantly clear that the Indigo Vats were overlooked and their existence cannot be ignored.

¶21

Unlike in the writ petition, out of which W.A.Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 arose, no dispute is raised by the respondent-State with regard to these inspections pertaining to the Indigo Vats. In the counter it is averred in more than one place that inspection has taken place. Petitioners filed copies of the order in W.P.No.11982 and 13268 of 2018. The learned single Judge noticed therein that the inspection was not proper and was doubtful. Paras 23 and 24 of the said order make this clear. Thereafter in para 26, the learned single Judge noticed that petitioners have also agreed to the compensation that was paid. Ultimately, in para 30, learned Judge held that very foundation of the claim of the petitioners is „shrouded‟ in suspicious circumstances. The very nature of the joint inspection was suspected.

¶22

In the present case, such a fact situation does not arise. The petitioners 1 to 7 have not accepted the award. There is

¶23

¶24

no averment raised in the counter that the inspection reports are dubious or false. Therefore, this Court holds that the respondents cannot rely upon the orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.334 and 335 of 2021 to defeat the petitioners‟ case. The fact situation in the present case is totally different. When there is a difference of even one fact, the applicability of the ratio would undergo fundamental change as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab¹ and Gian Chand and Ors. v. State of Haryana² .

¶25

The next part of the submission of the learned Government Pleader is that references are pending under section 64 of the Act. The counter does not state anything about the exact „reference‟ made by the petitioners. A reading of the counter affidavit makes it very clear that the petitioners have not accepted the market value. One document filed along with the counter which is a form of Reference to Court of the District Judge, Kakinada does not refer to the Indigo Vats in Sy.Nos.19/1 or 68. The other two documents filed are

¶26

1 AIR 2003 SC 3184

¶27

2 (2013) 14 SCC 420

¶28

¶29

objections under section 64 of the New Act with regard to the award dated 19.03.2015 filed by one K.Seenamma for land in Sy.No.285/2 and the other by Smt. J.Jayalakshumma for the land in Sy.No.294/2. Therefore, the contention of the Government Pleader that the references are pending before the competent authority is not borne out by the record. A reading of the counter also shows in page 4 before para 1 that action is being taken for publication of Indigo Vats existing in Sy.Nos.68 and 19/1 in reach No.9 of Jonnavaram Village. Sub-Collector, Land Acquisition GNSS, Kadapa has also requested the authorities to obtain fresh requisition for the Indigo Vats. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the Indigo Vats is not in dispute.

¶30

The question that arises is, whether this Court should direct the parties to make a reference or should the Court at this stage pass an order directing payment of compensation with the available and uncontroverted data.

¶31

Even if the parties are directed under sections 64 and 65 of the New Act, the authority will have to decide the matter in terms of the subsequent sections; including sections 69 to 72 for determining the amount. The Collector will also have

¶32

¶33

to look at sections 26 to 30 of the Act. The manner in which the market value is to be determined is given in sections 69 and 27 and 28 of the Act. In addition, section 29 deals with determination of value of things attached to the land. It also permits the Collector to avail the services of a competent engineer in the field. If the fact situation in this case is analyzed against these provisions of law, it is clear that the inspection of the Indigo Vats was carried out by the Executive Engineer of the Somasila Project along with the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. They have arrived at a value of Rs.69.90 lakhs. Later, since the constructions were old, the value was reduced to Rs.52.43 lakhs. The details are also given. In the counter affidavit, no doubt is raised about this inspection or of the calculation. There is a reference to the inspection in more than one para of the counter affidavit. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition did not agree to the proposals and directed the officials to obtain fresh requisition for Indigo Vats. It is also clearly stated that action is being taken for publication of the Indigo Vats after obtaining permission from the Government. The counter was filed on 20.08.2018. Till date, nothing is filed to show that

¶34

¶35

fresh publication was in fact issued for the Indigo Vats. As noted, the value has already been determined by the Engineer and recommended to the higher authorities. It was also reduced by 25%. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the requisite data for determination of the matter is already available (and the same is not disputed), driving the parties to a further reference is not really warranted in the facts of the

¶36

case. The petitioners were agitating since years for the compensation. Driving them to a further

¶37

reference/adjudication would be causing injustice, more so when the essential facts are not disputed. The demand for justice is compelling in this case and so this direction is given.

¶38

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that with the available data itself, a quietus can be given to this issue by adopting the value suggested in the second report dated 23.08.2017 i.e. a sum of Rs.52,43,999/-. This was suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners also. In the first P.V. statement, dated 17.12.2016, for the Indigo Vat in Sl.No.68, a value of Rs.40,22,000/- was determined. For the value of the Indigo Vats in Sl.No.19/1 a sum of

¶39

¶40

Rs.29,70,000/- was determined. This was reduced by 25% depending upon the SSR rates of 2007-2008 and the Old age constructions. This is adopted as the appropriate value by this Court. Therefore, petitioner No.8 is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,27,500/- along with interest @ 9% from 23.08.2017 till date of payment. Petitioners 1 to 7 are entitled to a total sum of Rs.30,16,499/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% from 23.08.2017 till the date of payment. (The individual amounts payable are mentioned in column 18 of the letter dated 23.08.2017 of the special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) to the Special Collector (Land Acquisition).

¶41

With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶42

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶43

Date : 12.10.2022 KLP

Aaduri Peda Veera Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaduri Peda Veera Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kancharla Sireesha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peeta Chinna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Thodaramalla Janardhana Thotraj Vs Avinash Kumar Kolaka

Afzulunnisa Begum and 2 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. and 2 Ors.

Annareddy Nagamma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Annareddy Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh