WP/23817/2000 of Smt. P. Posani Vs The Dy. Director , on 26 December 2007

ORDER:

1 Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to her by theland acquisition officer for the land acquired from her under theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) petitioner sought areference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court, afterconsidering the evidence adduced by both parties, enhanced thecompensation, but awarded interest only at 9% per annum from thedate of taking over possession till the date of judgment. Beingdissatisfied with the interest warded by the reference court, petitionerpreferred an appeal to this Court, which was dismissed and thatjudgment became final as no further appeal was preferred.

2 Alleging that in view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,1984 (Amendment Act), she is entitled to interest at 15% p.a. but not at9% p.a petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking amendment of theaward passed by the reference court and confirmed by this Court.

3 When I questioned the learned counsel for the petitionerregarding the maintainability of a Writ Petition for enhancement of theinterest in an award passed by a reference court and confirmed by thisCourt, the learned counsel relying on K. Loka Reddy Vs. Tahsildar- cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District[[1]]contended that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can passappropriate orders even in cases like this.

4 The facts in the decision relied on by the learned counsel forthe petitioner are entirely different from the facts of this case. In thatcase the Writ Petition was filed challenging the validity of payment ofcompensation awarded under the Act by the land acquisition officer byway of installments. By way of an additional ground a plea was raisedthat the petitioners are also entitled to relief extended under theAmendment Act. The learned Judge held that though the question inthe Writ Petition basically related to payment of compensation ordered to be paid by way of installments by the land acquisition authorities,petitioners therein can seek relief regarding the benefit granted by theAmendment Act also and so the land acquisition authorities can bedirected to give that additional relief also. That case does not relate toany judicial order. Proceedings of the land acquisition officer only werequestioned before the learned Judge in that case. In this case awardpassed by the land acquisition officer was referred to a reference Courtand the reference court while enhancing the compensation payable,awarded interest at 9% p.a. Being aggrieved by the interest awarded,petitioner approached this Court, and this court confirmed the interestgranted by the reference Court. So if the petitioner were to feel that sheis entitled to the benefits of the Amendment Act, she has to approachthe reference court or this Court on the appellate side seekingamendment of the award. Petitioner through a Writ Petition cannotseek amendment of the award passed by the reference court, whichwas confirmed by this Court. Therefore, this petition is notmaintainable.

5 One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that since a right conferred by a statute was not extended to her, thepetitioner has a right to approach this court seeking benefit of that Act. That prima facie does not apply to the facts of this case becauseappeal preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 16.04.1993 i.e.long subsequent to coming into force of the Amendment Act and asstated earlier, the remedy if any of the petitioner is to approach thereference Court or seek review of the order of this court passed inexercise of its appellate jurisdiction but not by way of filing a WritPetition.

6 Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.

-------------------------C.Y.Somayajulu, J.

[1]1986 (2) ALT 52