Sec.28 A Land Acquisition Act - application under section 28 A - application was rejected - another application for reference to civil court under sec.28 A (3) r/w under sec.18 to civil court for determination - Writ allowed correctly - reference is valid as the LAO may adopted civil court award or may grant less or may reject the claim under sec.28 A - it is his duty to refer the matter to civil court on the protest application - no wrong = The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Rep. by its General Manager,Karimnagar District..petitioner The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Unit S.C.C.L. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and others ..Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10631

Sec.28 A Land Acquisition Act - application under section 28 A - application was rejected - another application for reference to civil court under sec.28 A (3) r/w under sec.18 to civil court for determination - Writ allowed correctly - reference is valid as the LAO may adopted civil court award or may grant less or may reject the claim under sec.28 A - it is his duty to refer the matter to civil court on the protest application - no wrong  =
The Civil Court enhanced the
compensation through its order dated
30-10-1989.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e.
the 1st respondent, under Section 28-A of the Act.  The same was rejected by the
1st respondent through order dated 18-11-1992.  Aggrieved by that, the
respondents 2 and 3 made a request to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to
the Civil Court under Section 28A(3) of the Act.  - filed writ - writ allowed and matter is refered to civil court - challanging the same again writ = 

"Sec.28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Court.-

(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any
amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under 
section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same
notification under section 4, 
sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under
section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the
date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable
to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded  
by the Court:

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the award shall be excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving
them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the
amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by 
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18
to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under section 18."
The exercise of "re-determination" by the Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A is nothing but an extended process of
passing the award.  The only difference is that the adjudication undertaken by
the Civil Court would constitute the basis.  The correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on an application, filed under
Section 28-A is made subject to the process under Section 28(3), which is
similar to the one, under Section 18, vis--vis an award pass under Section 11
of the Act.

Respondents 2 and 3 did nothing more than invoke Sub-section (3) of Section 28
of the Act, and wanted the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil
Court.  The 1st respondent was bound to do that.  When he faltered, respondents
2 and 3 have approached this Court and got a Writ issued.  After inordinate
delay, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, referring the matter to the
Civil Court.  It is just ununderstandable as to how the petitioner can scuttle
the legal process.  In case the Civil Court finds that the respondents 2 and 3
are entitled for the benefit of enhancement of compensation, the petitioner has
to squarely blame themselves for the liability incurred by them to pay the
interest and other statutory benefits, for a period, exceeding one decade.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.  The Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Peddapalli, is directed to take up the reference made through the impugned order
dated 06-12-2000 forthwith and determine the matter within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL              

Writ Petition No.4157 of  2001


06-12-2013

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Rep. by its General Manager,Karimnagar
District..petitioner

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Unit S.C.C.L. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District
and others ..Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P.for Land Acquisition

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

0?Cases referred

(Judgment of the Bench delivered by
 the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL      


Writ Petition No.4157 of  2001

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

The  lands of respondents 2 and 3 herein situated in different survey numbers of
Adrial Village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District were acquired for the
benefit of the petitioner, by initiating the proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act').  Award was passed on 03-08-1987, fixing
the market value at Rs.16,000/-, 7000/- and Rs.6,000/-, per acre for the lands
under categories 1, 2 and 3 respectively.  Vast extents of lands belonging to
others were also acquired under the same notification.  Some of the owners
sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.
On reference being made, the matter was taken up as, O.P.No.78 of 1988 by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.  The Civil Court enhanced the
compensation through its order dated
30-10-1989.

Respondents 2 and 3 filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e.
the 1st respondent, under Section 28-A of the Act.  The same was rejected by the
1st respondent through order dated 18-11-1992.  Aggrieved by that, the
respondents 2 and 3 made a request to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to
the Civil Court under Section 28A(3) of the Act.  When the request was not
acceded to, the respondents 2 and 3 filed W.P.No.4918 of 1993.  The writ
petition was disposed of on 08-11-1993, directing the
1st respondent to take necessary steps.  After voluminous correspondence ensued,
the 1st respondent passed orders dated 06-12-2000, referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 28-A(3) of the Act.  The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition.

The petitioner feels aggrieved by the reference of the matter to the Civil Court
by the 1st respondent, in relation to the claim made by the respondents 2 and 3.
The principal contention urged before this Court is that the respondents 2 and 3
did not take any steps to pursue the remedies under Section 18 of the Act and
that once their claim is rejected under Section 28-A of the Act, they cannot
seek reference to the Civil Court, once again.
The understanding of the petitioner about the scheme under Section 28-A does not
appear to be correct.
The reference of a mater to the Civil Court at the instance of a person, who did
not seek reference under Section 18 may appear to be some-what extraordinary.
However, if one takes into account,
the purport of Section 28-A of the Act, the doubt in this regard stands
clarified.

Section 28-A of the Act reads as under:
"Sec.28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Court.-

(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any
amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under 
section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same
notification under section 4, 
sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under
section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the
date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable
to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded  
by the Court:

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on
which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the award shall be excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving
them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the
amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by 
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18
to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under section 18."

The provision was included through amendment, with an objective of protecting
the interests of the innocent owners of the land, who did not avail the benefit
under Section 18 of the Act.
The Parliament took note of the fact that reference under Section 18 of the Act
is not a matter of course, and much would depend upon the acts and omissions on
the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, and that a person whose land is
acquired under the same notification must not be given differential treatment.

Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A prescribes the procedure,
to be followed in this behalf.  In case some of the persons whose lands are
acquired under a particular notification seek reference to the Civil Court and
the same has resulted in the enhancement of compensation, the persons whose
lands were acquired under the same notification, but did not seek reference
under Section 18 of the Act are extended the facility of seeking re-
determination of compensation.  The only requirement is that the application
must be filed within a stipulated time, duly enclosing the certified copy of the
order and decree passed in the reference, made at the instance of other persons,
covered by the same notification.

There exists an element of discretion on the part of the Land Acquisition
Officer in processing the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act.  In
fact, it is required to be there.  The Civil Court may have enhanced the
compensation in respect of the land covered by a particular notification.  It is
not necessary that the entire land covered by the notification, that too owned
by different persons must possess the same attributes and features.  In a given
case, the land owned by the person, who sought reference, may be more valuable,
or less, compared to the one, owned by a person who did not seek reference.  The
Land Acquisition Officer is required to take these aspects into account, while
re-determining the compensation.  He need not award the same compensation, as  
awarded by the trial Court, mechanically.  The very use of expression 're-
determination' is indicative of the element of discretion, that is vested in the
Land Acquisition Officer.

On examination of the application filed under Section 28-A, the Land Acquisition
Officer may, a) award the same compensation to the applicant, as awarded by the
trial Court,
b) award less amount of compensation, if the land of the applicant is in a
disadvantageous position, or 
c) reject the application, duly indicating the reasons therefor.

The Parliament did not intend to make the order of the Land Acquisition Officer
passed under Section 28-A of the Act, as the last word on the issue.  It took
note of the fact that the only agency, which can re-assess and review the
exercise undertaken by a Land Acquisition Officer; is a Civil Court and
accordingly provided for reference, under Section 18 of the Act, to such Court,
or 30, as the case may be.  The exercise of "re-determination" by the Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A is nothing but an extended process of
passing the award.  The only difference is that the adjudication undertaken by
the Civil Court would constitute the basis.  The correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on an application, filed under
Section 28-A is made subject to the process under Section 28(3), which is
similar to the one, under Section 18, vis--vis an award pass under Section 11
of the Act.

Respondents 2 and 3 did nothing more than invoke Sub-section (3) of Section 28
of the Act, and wanted the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil
Court.  The 1st respondent was bound to do that.  When he faltered, respondents
2 and 3 have approached this Court and got a Writ issued.  After inordinate
delay, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, referring the matter to the
Civil Court.  It is just ununderstandable as to how the petitioner can scuttle
the legal process.  In case the Civil Court finds that the respondents 2 and 3
are entitled for the benefit of enhancement of compensation, the petitioner has
to squarely blame themselves for the liability incurred by them to pay the
interest and other statutory benefits, for a period, exceeding one decade.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.  The Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Peddapalli, is directed to take up the reference made through the impugned order
dated 06-12-2000 forthwith and determine the matter within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition shall also stand disposed
of.

  There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
______________________  
M.S.K. JAISWAL, J
Dt.06-12-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.