Dismissed

The State of Ap v. Ianmpudi Atchaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Apr 2023WA/270/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order directing the State to pay balance land compensation due to calculation errors. The Court held Section 18 LAP 1894 inapplicable due to the error but modified the relief to grant interest and solatium under the 1894 Act instead of the local statute.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with modification: Interest and solatium to be paid under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 instead of Act 30 of 2013.

The State of Ap Vs Ianmpudi Atchaiah — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 270 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order in dated 08.08.2022 in WP No.35232 of 2017, on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA) Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, A.P.,

¶11

1: TheThe DistrictSpecialCollector,CollectorPrakasam(LA), KandulaDistrict,ObulaPrakasamBhavan,Reddy GundlakammaOngole. Reservoir Project, Opp. PrakasamBhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶12

4. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), KandulaObula Reddy; Gundlakamma Reservoir Project, Opp. PrakasamBhavan, Old Govt. Helospital, Ongole, Anantapur District.

¶13

...AppellantsZRespondents in WP No. 35232/2017

¶14

AND

¶15

lanmpudi Atchaiah, S/o.Govindaiah, Aged about 70 years, R/o.Manikeswaram Village, Addanki Post and Mandal, Prakasam District, A.P., .. .RespondenVPetitioner

¶16

2. The Executive Engineer, (R&B) Division, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, (R&B) Division, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶17

.. .RespondenVPetitioner

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned order dated.08.08.2022 in WP No.35232 of 2017 pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : MS.B. TARA SUJATHA FOR

¶23

SRI A. HANUMANTHA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,3 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶25

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶26

J1-1
Uf ■ V,
<-

¶27

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶31

WRIT APPEAL NO.270 of 2023

¶32

Between:-

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA) Department & 3 others Appellants/Respondents in W.P.No.35232/2017

¶34

And

¶35

lanmupudi Atchaiah & 2 others .... Respondents/Writ Petitioners

¶36

Counsel for the Writ Appellants : Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents ; Ms.B.Tara Sujatha, Learned Counsel, representing Mr.A.Hanumantha Reddy

¶38

ORDER

¶39

10.04.2023

¶40

(Per Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

¶41

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition, the Appellants/State preferred the present Writ Appeal.

¶42

For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition.

¶43

¶44

¶45

The case of the petitioner in brief is that his entire house situated in Manikeswaram Viliage, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District was acquired for the purpose of Kanduia Obuia Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project and he was paid a sum of Rs.2,14,074/- by a cheque on 13.12.2011. On realizing that others having lesser extents of property got higher compensation, the petitioner gave a representation to revalue the amount due towards compensation as per the exact plinth area of the house and for payment. The matter was enquired into by the authorities and it was realized that the actual compensation payable is Rs.4,34,417/-. Despite the same, the differential amount is not paid. Therefore, seeking direction for payment of balance compensation of Rs.2,20,343/- with interest and other statutory benefits, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

Before the Learned Single Judge it was contended on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the Communications/Letters and other material that the respondent authorities have considered the representation made by the petitioner and found that there is an error in the Award, that this Court has ample power to issue direction for payment of balance compensation amount as it is a case of wrong calculation of plinth area by the authorities/respondents. It was also contended to the effect that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable in such circumstances. Relying on the decision of the Hdn"ble Supreme Court

¶47

¶48

in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha^ and Tukaram Kana Joshi and others (through Power of Attorney Holder) vs. Maharasthra Industrial Development Corporation and others^, it was urged to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶49

Per contra> it was argued on behalf of the respondents/State that the Award was passed long back, payment was also made to the petitioner and he received it without any objection. It was also contended that as the Award was passed, the only option available to the petitioner was to invoke Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as no appropriate application was filed in terms of the said Act, the petitioner is not entitled for making any claim, much less, before the Writ Court.

¶50

The Learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised by both sides allowed the Writ Petition, with a direction to pay the balance amount with interest and solatium, as per the Act 30 of 2013 etc., from 19.04.2012 till the date of actual payment. 7. Assailing the said order, the Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition vehemently contended that a consent Award was passed long back and on passing of the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer becomes „functus officio" and therefore no further Award can be passed. She contends that the Learned Single Judge is not right in opining that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable and further

¶51

AIR 1980SC 1896

¶52

’ (2013) 1 see 353

¶53

¶54

went wrong in allowing the Writ Petition without considering the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents/State in a proper perspective. The Learned Government Pleader also contends that in any event, the direction of the Learned Single Judge to pay the balance compensation with interest and solatium as per Act 30 of 2013 is not sustainable in Law.

¶55

Refuting the said arguments, on behalf of the writ petitioner it was inter alia contended that it is a case where the authorities themselves committed mistake in calculation of the plinth area and the various Communications available on record would make the said aspect amply clear. Contending that for the mistake committed by the authorities, the petitioner cannot be penalized, much less, on mere technicalities, it was urged that the Learned Single Judge had examined the matter at length and allowed the Writ Petition taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case and the order under challenge is just, valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

¶56

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

¶57

At the outset, it may be noted that the Learned Judge after perusal of the record of the relevant material, including the report dated 19104.2012 of the concerned Deputy Executive Engineer, passed a detailed order. Though it is sought to be projected that the petitioner has

¶58

¶59

accepted the compensation without any demur, the Learned Judge with reference to the Communication/Representation of the petitioner. recorded a categorical finding that within 4 months of the receipt of the payment, the petitioner"s protest was accepted and the issue was relooked by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Government Pleader with regard to consent award merits no acceptance. In so far as the contention with regard to Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is concerned, the Learned Judge while examining the same, referred to the material on record, including the Letters/Communications dated 19.04.2012, 22.06.2013 & 27.06.2014 and from the contents therein noted that the respondents themselves have admitted in more than one place that the initial calculation is wrong and that the correct plinth area of the building was not noticed. After referring to Section 18 of the Act and taking into consideration the fact that there is an error in the calculation of the plinth area and that further compensation was payable is visible from the record, the Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that Section 18 of the Act is not applicable to the case on hand as the area of the house was wrongly calculated. Such conclusions of the Learned Single Judge, more particularly in the attending facts and circumstances of the case that too based on sound reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not call for any different view.

¶60

¶61

¶62

11-. Further, as seen from the order and rightly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Judge has exercised the powers of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Learned Single Judge has assigned cogent reasons for granting the relief to the petitioner and. the discretion, as exercised by the Learned Single Judge warrants no interference in the Intra-Court Appeal, more particularly, as the same does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.

¶63

12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court see no good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Learned Single Judge. However, while allowing the Writ Petitiqn, the Learned Judge issued a direction for payrnent of the balance amount of Rs.2,20,343/- with interest and solatium as per "Act 30 of 2013", which appears to be a typographical error. To that extent, the order needs to be corrected. This Court, therefore, while not inclined to interfere with the conclusions as arrived at by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition, modify the direction with regard to payment of the interest and solatium as per "the Land Acquisition Act, 1894" instead of "Act 30 of 2013". 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above modification. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed..

¶64

SD/- E. KAWIESWARA RAO DEPUTY^^^GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶65

To. 1. One CC to Sri. A Hanumantha Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Roads & Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 4. Two CO Copies PV Sdkr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/04/2023

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WA.No.270 of 2023

¶72

DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS