ModapothulaRamanaiah, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the Respondents.

¶21

The petitioners herein had lost their lands, on account of foreshore submersion of the Somasila Project. The lands of the

¶22

2

¶23

petitioners were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by a process initiated by notification, dated 22.10.2005, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶24

The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.4767 of 2019, contending that the petitioners had sought a reference on the quantum of compensation, to the Civil Court, by way of an application submitted to the 3^rd respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This representation is said to have been made, by way of an application, dated 22.04.2006, and served on the 3^rd respondent, on 25.04.2006. The respondents had approached this Court with the complaint that the 3^rd respondent had not referred the matter to the Civil Court despite the passage of more than 13 years after the request for reference.

¶25

The respondent authorities had filed a counter affidavit disputing the receipt of the representation, dated 22.04.2006. The official respondents contended that the signature available on the covering letter, under which the applications were filed, does not belong to the 3^rd respondent. The official respondents also contended that the inordinate delay of 13 years in approaching this Court would raise the ground of latches and the Writ Petition would have to be dismissed on this short ground.

¶26

3

¶27

A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated

¶28

28.08.2023, had dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of latches. The learned Single Judge took the view that the delay of 13 years has not been explained and in such circumstances, the Writ Petition would have to be dismissed on the ground of latches. The learned Single Judge, however, did not go into the question of whether the signature of the officer appearing on the acknowledgment of the covering letter, dated 22.04.2006, is a genuine signature or not as the Writ petition was being dismissed on the ground of latches.

¶29

Aggrieved by this judgment, the writ petitioners filed the

¶30

present Writ Appeal.

¶31

The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been brought into force to ensure that persons who have lost their property, by way of acquisition, by the State are compensated, in some measure, for the loss of their lands. The Land Acquisition Act, 1984 would fall within the category of welfare legislation. It is settled law that welfare legislation should be interpreted and enforced liberally to ensure that the affected persons do not loose valuable rights.

¶32

In that perspective, the period of latches could have been condoned. However, the question of latches would arise only if there was a genuine application for reference, to the Civil Court, under Section 18 of

¶33

4

¶34

the Land Acquisition Act. The official respondents denied the receipt of any such application. The question of whether the official respondents had received such a representation would have to be addressed, before the question of latches could have been taken up.

¶35

In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge for a determination on the issue of whether the representation for reference to the Civil Court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been submitted or not. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

_______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J

¶38

______________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO,J

¶39

RJS

¶40

5

¶41

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO