Allowed

Avuladapuram Bhojanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC19 Sept 2013WP/12494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed four writ petitions, holding that prior receipt of land acquisition compensation without protest does not bar an application for reference to the Civil Court under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Deputy Collector was directed to refer the cases for redetermination of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Deputy Collector to refer petitioners' cases under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for redetermination of compensation.

Avuladapuram Bhojanna Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 12494, 11485, 11508 & 11519 OF 2012

¶3

th Date: September 19 , 2013

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 12494 OF 2012

¶5

Between: Avuldapuram Bhojanna & others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, & others … Respondents

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 11485 OF 2012

¶7

Between: Royyala Nadipi Bhoomanna & others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, & others … Respondents

¶8

WRIT PETITION No. 11508 OF 2012 Between: Madigi Sayanna & others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, & others … Respondents WRIT PETITION No. 11519 OF 2012 Between: Are Jeevan Rao & others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department,

¶9

Secretariat, Hyderabad, & others … Respondents

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos. 12494, 11485, 11508 & 11519 OF 2012

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

The petitioners in these four cases are aggrieved by the inaction of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Sri Ram Sagar Project, Pochampad, Nizamabad District, in referring their cases to the Civil Court under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act of 1894), for re-determination of the compensation payable to them in terms of the awards passed by the reference Courts under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, enhancing the compensation.

¶15

2. Admittedly, the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking reference under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 are within the time prescribed. The only ground on which the said applications are not being acted upon, as per the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, is that the petitioners received the compensation payable to them under the land acquisition awards without protest.

¶16

3. As to whether such a contention can be raised by the State while processing an application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 has already been considered by a Constitution Bench in Union of India

¶17

and another Vs. Hansoli Devi and others^[1] . The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are relevant and are extracted hereunder:

¶18

"Coming to the second question for reference, the

¶19

receipt of compensation with or without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is of no consequence for the purpose of making a fresh application under Section 28-A. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landowner's application for reference is answered by the reference Court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner".

¶20

4. In the light of the afore-stated settled legal position, it is not open to the State to deny relief to the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 on the sole ground that they did not raise any protest at the time of accepting the compensation under the Land Acquisition Awards.

¶21

5. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be a direction to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Sri Ram Sagar Project, Pochampad, Nizamabad District, to refer the petitioners' cases to the Civil Court under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 for redetermination of the compensation in terms of the awards passed by the reference Courts enhancing the compensation. Pending

¶22

miscellaneous petitions in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final common order. No order as to costs.

¶23

_____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Date: September 19^th , 2013. JSK

¶24

[1] (2002) 7 SCC 273

Avuladapuram Bhojanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avuladapuram Bhojanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

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

Smt Sharifa Bee Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rudrakshala Roja Suryakumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt C.Sriranjanamma, W/o.Adinarayana Reddy, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Dasari Murthy Vs Mr.L.Venkata Ramana Reddy

M/s. Poorna Shankari Industries, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Satyavarapu Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh