WP/38404/2012 of Vangala Sreeman Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to directrespondent Nos.2 to 4 to refer the petitioner’s claim forhigher compensation to the competent civil Court underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short‘the Act’) in respect of land admeasuring 200 squareyards in Survey No.1232 of Manakondur Village,Karimnagar Mandal and District, by holding that therewas no settlement between the petitioner and therespondents for passing consent award under Section11(2) of the Act.

I have heard Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Land Acquisition.

The above-mentioned land of the petitioner wasnotified for acquisition for the purpose of Moulana AbdulKalam Azad Hyderabad Sujala Sravanthi Project undernotification, dated 27.04.2010. It is not in dispute that thepetitioner has given consent for passing of an award byexecuting Forms-III and IV. However, before the awardwas passed, the petitioner has caused a legal notice,dated 18.08.2010, issued to respondent No.3, wherein itwas mentioned that the staff of the Land AcquisitionOfficer has obtained his signatures without disclosing tohim the purpose for which the signatures are obtainedand that, therefore, he is not agreeable for passing ofthe consent award. However, respondent No.3 haspassed an award under Section 11(2) of the Act.

After receiving compensation on 21.10.2010, thepetitioner filed a petition, dated 16.12.2010, purportedlyunder Section 18 of the Act for reference of the disputeregarding the quantum of compensation to thecompetent civil Court. More than two years thereafter,the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

On 13.12.2012, when this case came up foradmission, this Court has adjourned the case to enablethe Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisitionto produce the records in order to know whether thepetitioner has received the compensation under protestor not. Accordingly, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader placed before the Court the AcquittanceRegister. A perusal of the said Register would show thatthe petitioner has received the compensation ofRs.50,700/- without any protest on 21.10.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the petitioner has informed respondent No.3through his legal notice, dated 18.08.2010, that he is notagreeable for passing of a consent award, respondentNo.3 has no power or authority to pass a consent award.He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court inBoya Akkamma and Others Vs. Special DeputyCollector, Land Acquisition, H.L.C., Anantapur[[1]]insupport of his submission that no formal protest isrequired for the registered land owner while receivingcompensation, if his request for reference of the disputeunder Section 18 of the Act is made within theprescribed time.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition while opposing the above submission,submitted that the petitioner has received thecompensation without any protest even though he wasaware of the fact that the award was passed underSection 11(2) of the Act. She has distinguished thejudgment in Boya Akkamma’s case (supra) by statingthat in the said case, the award was passed underSection 11(1) of the Act. The fact that the petitioner has given his consentfor passing a consent award is not in dispute. It is alsonot seriously disputed that before respondent No.3 haspassed the award, the petitioner has withdrawn hisconsent. However, the fact remains that respondentNo.3 has passed the consent award under Section 11(2)of the Act.

In the present case, it is not necessary for thisCourt to delve into the reason as to why respondentNo.3 has passed the consent award even though thepetitioner has withdrawn his consent. However, thisCourt is concerned with the conduct of the petitioner after the purported consent award was passed. Whenthe petitioner has withdrawn his consent and was notwilling for passing of a consent award, he ought not tohave received the compensation without registering hisprotest. Even if respondent No.3 has exceeded hisjurisdiction in passing the consent award after thepetitioner has withdrawn his consent, the petitioner haswaived his right, if any, to question the validity of theconsent award by receiving the compensation withoutany demur. Not only that the petitioner has received hiscompensation without protest but also he remained quietfor more than two years before filing this Writ Petition.

It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner thatafter he has caused the legal notice, dated 18.08.2010,issued to respondent No.3, he has followed the same byfurther representations to respondent No.3. He hasraised a vague plea in the affidavit that he has requestedthe Land Acquisition Officer several times for supply of acopy of the award. The petitioner failed to filedocumentary evidence such as copies of representationsin support of his submission. The fact that the petitionerhas received the compensation without protest on21.10.2010 and remained quiet for two years after theissuance of notice for reference of the dispute underSection 18 of the Act clinchingly establishes that thoughthe petitioner formally withdrew his consent, he has notseriously disputed the consent award except seekingreference under Section 18 of the Act.

The conduct of the petitioner in receiving thecompensation without protest disentitles him to questionthe validity of the award. Under Section 18 of the Act, aperson is entitled to seek reference of the dispute to thecivil Court only if he does not accept the award.

The judgment in Boya Akkamma (supra) does not support the petitioner’s case because in that case theaward was passed under Section 11(1) of the Act. ThisCourt held that the very fact that the claimant has madea request for reference within the prescribed time limititself indicates that he has not accepted the award andthat therefore no formal protest was necessary.

In the instant case, as the petitioner has receivedthe compensation without any protest under the awardpassed under Section 11(2) of the Act, it is deemed thathe has accepted the award. Hence, he is not entitled toseek reference of the dispute to the competent civilCourt under Section 18 of the Act.

There is one other reason for this Court’sdisinclination to grant relief to the petitioner. Even thoughthe petitioner has made his request for reference on16.12.2010, he has approached this Court about twoyears later. The petitioner failed to explain the reasonsfor his not approaching this Court within a reasonabletime. Thus, the Writ Petition suffers from unexplainedlaches.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the WritPetition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

____________________________

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA

REDDY

31[st] December 2012DR