It is settled principle of law that the proceedings under Article 226 are limited to the grounds available for judicial review, whereas the appeal under Section 54 of the Act enables the appellate Court to go through the evidence adduced before the civil Court or available with it in the light of the evidence already adduced and examine whether the enhancement of compensation is proper or not. The alternative remedy and the scope of enquiry in the appeal is much wider than the discretionary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Act and the time spent for these proceedings can be exempted for condoning the delay, if any.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

Writ Petition Nos. 20896 of 2017

20-10-2017

Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to the Government of India,Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi and others . P

K. Ravinder Reddy and others . Respondents  

Counsel for the Petitioners:  Asst. Solicitor General

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 6:  Sri Harender Pershad
Counsel for Respondent No.8        :  Ms. M. Siva Jyothi
Counsel for Respondent No.9        :  GP for Land Acquisition

<Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1980 SC 1118
2.  (1995) 2 SCC 326
3. (2015) 5 SCC 423
4. 2014(6) ALT 405
5. 1987 MLJ 189


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          
Writ Petition Nos.20896 and 23946 of 2017

Common Order:
      These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common
order, as they involve a common point of law.
      W.P.No.20896 of 2017 was filed challenging the judgment and
decree in L.A.O.P.No.100 of 2011 dated 09.02.2016 passed by the
learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad,  whereas W.P.No.23946 of 2017 was filed by the same  
petitioners challenging the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.1123 of
2010 dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for
trial of Cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
      The facts in the two writ petitions are that the second petitioner
sent a requisition for acquisition of lands of an extent of 4000 to 4500
acres in various villages of Ranga Reddy District vide its letter dated
05.11.2004 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for the benefit
of the petitioner Laboratories.  Accordingly, a notification was issued
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act)
on 06.07.2006 and a declaration was published on 06.07.2007.  The Land
Acquisition Officer, 9th respondent passed an Award on 10.04.2008
awarding a compensation of Rs.600/- per sq. yard for the lands under
acquisition, but having not satisfied with the said Award, the land owners
sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered
as L.A.O.P.No.100 of 2011.  The Civil Court enhanced the compensation
from Rs.600/- per sq. yard to Rs.1250/- per sq. yard by its order dated
09.02.2016.  Challenging the said order, W.P.No.20896 of 2017 was filed.
      The petitioners in W.P.No.23946 of 2017 are also covered by the
same notification, declaration and Award.  However, their reference was
numbered as L.A.O.P.No.1123 of 2010 and the compensation was  
enhanced from Rs.600/- to Rs.4000/- per sq. yard by the Civil Court by its
judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017.  Challenging the said judgement,
W.P.No.23946 of 2017 was filed.
      This Court, by order dated 30.06.2017, while issuing notice before
admission in W.P.No.20896 of 2017, granted interim suspension of the
operation of the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2016 in
L.A.O.P.No.100 of 2011 for a period of six weeks and later on it is coming
up for hearing.  No counter affidavit is filed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, but the other respondents filed an affidavit seeking vacation of
the said order and the averments made in the counter affidavit are not
being dealt with since this Court is disposing of these two Writ Petitions
on the issue of maintainability and availability of alternative remedy.
      Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Writ Petitions
are maintainable and in the absence of any notice to the Requisitioning
Authority, the Petitioners, the judgements of the reference courts are
liable to be set aside.
      Learned counsel for the land owners, on the other hand, submitted
that after numbering the reference by the Civil Court, though intimation
was given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.04.2014 to the third
petitioner to take necessary steps for impleading and protecting the
interest of the Government, no steps were taken by the third petitioner
and hence the judgements of the Civil Courts are valid.
      In the light of the above rival contentions, the points framed for
consideration in the present Writ Petitions are;
(1)     Whether it is obligatory on the part of the Civil Court to issue
a notice to the beneficiaries of the land acquisition in the case
of a reference to the Civil Court at the instance of the land
owners who were not satisfied with the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer?
(2)     Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable challenging the
judgements of the reference courts?
(3)     To what relief.

      The land of an extent of Ac.55.03 gts., situated in Survey Nos.1 to
8, 11 to 19, 21 to 25, 27, 30 and 31 of Roshanudowla village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is involved in the two writ
petitions.  The land was acquired for establishing Research facilities and
security strip around the boundaries of DRDL (Defence Research and
Development Laboratory).  The lands of the unofficial respondent land
owners are covered by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and
hence there is no dispute on facts.  In L.A.O.P.No.100 of 2011 the learned
II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad enhanced the compensation from Rs.600/- per sq. yard to
Rs.1250/- per sq. yard, whereas in L.A.O.P.No.1123 of 2010 the learned
VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar, Hyderabad enhanced the compensation from Rs.600/- per sq. yard
to Rs.4000/- per sq. yard.  Thus, the judgements passed by the reference
courts are challenged in the present Writ Petitions by the petitioners.
      Admittedly, the petitioners were not put on notice and on that
ground the validity of the Awards are under challenge.


Sections 18 to 21 of the Act read as follows.
       18. Reference to Court :- (1) Any person interested
who has not accepted the award may, by written application to
the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of
the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested.

       (2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken.

       Provided that every such application shall be made:-

       (a) if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his award within
six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

       (b) in other cases, within six months of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or
within six months from the date of the Collector's award,
whichever period shall first expire.

       19. Collector's statement to the Court:- (1) In
making the reference, the Collector shall state for the
information of the Court, in writing under his hand,

       (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars
of  any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon;

       (b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to
think interested in such land;

       (c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or
tendered under sections 5 and 17, or either of them, and the
amount of compensation awarded under section 11

       (cc) the amount paid or deposited under sub-section
(3A) of section 17; and

       (d) if the objection be to the amount of the
compensation, the grounds on which the amount of
compensation was determined.

       (2) To the said statement shall be attached a Schedule
giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the
statements in writing made or delivered by, the parties
interested respectively.


       20. Service of notice :- The Court shall thereupon
cause a notice, specifying the day on which the Court will
proceed to determine the objection, and directing their
appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the
following persons, namely: -

       (a) the applicant;

       (b) all persons interested in the objection, except such
(if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive
payment of the compensation awarded; and

       (c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or
to the amount of the compensation, the Collector.

       21. Restriction on scope of proceedings:- The scope
of the inquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a
consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the
objection.


      A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Orient Cement v. State
of A.P., (W.P.No.17532 of 1988 dated 07.10.1994), by relying on a
decision reported in Himalaya Tiles & Marble (P) Limited v. F.V.
Coutinho , and interpreting Section 20(b) of the Act held that it is
mandatory for the Court of reference to cause a notice served on the
beneficiary for whom the land was acquired before proceeding to
determine the compensation.
      In U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by
LRs , a Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court by its majority
judgment held as follows.
To sum up, our conclusions are :
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for
whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition
proceedings before the Collector and the reference court and
adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate
notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before
whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which
the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.
3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority
from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local
authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the
amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference
court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution
as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section
50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of
the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available
to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is
permissible under Article 226.
6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings
before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a
party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the
determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector
and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce  
evidence in that regard.
7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation
by the reference court if the Government does not file an
appeal the local authority can file an appeal against the award in
the High Court after obtaining leave of the court.
8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the  
reference court the local authority, the should be impleaded as
a party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal.
This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in
this Court.
9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the
same right as a local authority under Section 50(2), whatever
has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a
company too.
10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not
be reopened.

      The said Constitution Bench decision is holding the field and the
decision of the Division Bench is binding on me.  A reading of the above
decisions would make it clear that the beneficiary has a right to appear in
the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court
and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation.  The said right carries with it the right to be given
adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference court, but the
beneficiary cannot seek a reference on its own. It can challenge the award
of the Collector or the judgement of the reference Court in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available
under the Land Acquisition Act.  Even after issuing a notice to the
beneficiary, it is open to the beneficiary to challenge the Award in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution on grounds on which
judicial review is permissible.  The beneficiary is a proper party.  In the
case of enhancement of compensation by reference Court, if the
government does not file an appeal, the beneficiary can file an appeal
against the judgement of the civil court in the High Court after obtaining
leave of the Court.
      Learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported
in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath  and submitted that the judicial
orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and those orders can be challenged only by
way of statutory appeal or revision or under Article 227, but not by way
of Writ Petition under Articles 226 or 32.  The said decision did not arise
out of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and it is only a decision
of three Judge Bench. In fact the said decision was considered by me in
Pervaram Ramulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , and
followed the ratio since the said case related to the exercise of civil
jurisdiction by the court.  When there is a Constitution Bench decision
directly arising under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and
holding that the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226
challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or of the
Civil Court, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the
present case.
      Thus, the point Nos.1 and 2 above have to be held in favour of the
petitioners.
      Coming to the relief to be granted in the present Writ Petitions,
when this Court pointed out that the scope of enquiry in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution are circumscribed by the grounds of
judicial review and a regular appeal under Section 54 of the Act would
better serve the purpose of the petitioners, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be spectators in an
appeal preferred before this Court, by relying on a decision reported in
Indian Rare Earths Limited v. The Sub Collector, Land
Acquisition Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari  
District .  The observations of the Division Bench in the said case are no
longer good law, in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Honble
Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishads case (supra).  The
said decision is correct only to the extent of entitlement of the beneficiary
for a notice and maintainability of a Writ Petition, but the observations
relating to the scope of enquiry under Article 226 in the place of an
alternative remedy available under the Act are not correct.
      It is settled principle of law that the proceedings under Article 226
are limited to the grounds available for judicial review, whereas the appeal
under Section 54 of the Act enables the appellate Court to go through the
evidence adduced before the civil Court or available with it in the light of
the evidence already adduced and examine whether the enhancement of
compensation is proper or not.  The alternative remedy and the scope of
enquiry in the appeal is much wider than the discretionary remedy of
Article 226 of the Constitution.
      In the circumstances, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed giving
liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 54
of the Act and the time spent for these proceedings can be exempted for
condoning the delay, if any.  There shall be no order as to costs.
        As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in
these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.


____________________________    
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J      
Date:  20th October, 2017