LETTERS PATENT APPEAL 7169 of 2010 on 23 November 2016

JUDGMENT:

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the order,dated 23.11.2016, passed in W.P.No.7169 of 2010, by the learned Single Judge.dated 23.11.2016, passed in W.P.No.7169 of 2010, by the learned Single Judge.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent No.1 wasthe owner of the landof anextent of Ac.03.03 centsin Sy.Nos. 118/IB and118/2of ChandapuramVillage,NandigamaMandal,KrishnaDistrict.Therespondent No.2 had purchased Ac.0.50 cents of this[land.]In the month ofOctober 2004, proceedings were initiatedto take over[the][ said]landfor thepurpose of construction of 132/33 K.V. Sub-Station at Nandigama, by the A.P.TRANSCO.Initially, negotiations were carried out for the purpose of fixing thecompensation for payment. At the initial stage, an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs peracre was fixed as market value, during the course of negotiations and consentletters were also taken on stamp papers from the respondentNos.1&2.Subsequently, the authorities speeded up the process of acquisition by issuinga notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 27.06.2005[and]declarationunder Section 6 of the Act on12.07.2005. Apart fromthis,theauthoritiesMnvoked Section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for taking over theimmediate possession of the land.At that stage, the[authorities][ took][ the][ market]the owner of the landof anextent of Ac.03.03 centsin Sy.Nos. 118/IB and118/2of ChandapuramVillage,NandigamaMandal,KrishnaDistrict.Therespondent No.2 had purchased Ac.0.50 cents of this[land.]In the month ofOctober 2004, proceedings were initiatedto take over[the][ said]landfor thepurpose of construction of 132/33 K.V. Sub-Station at Nandigama, by the A.P.TRANSCO.Initially, negotiations were carried out for the purpose of fixing thecompensation for payment. At the initial stage, an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs peracre was fixed as market value, during the course of negotiations and consentletters were also taken on stamp papers from the respondentNos.1&2.Subsequently, the authorities speeded up the process of acquisition by issuinga notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 27.06.2005[and]declarationunder Section 6 of the Act on12.07.2005. Apart fromthis,theauthoritiesMnvoked Section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for taking over theimmediate possession of the land.At that stage, the[authorities][ took][ the][ market]

value of the land at Rs.3.5 lakhs and paid 80% of the compensation, calculatedon the basis of market value of the land at Rs.3.5 Lakhs.

3. The authorities, after taking over the land, did not take any steps to passnecessary Award and the said Award came to be passed only on 13.08.2009. Itappears that the said Award fixed the market value[of][ the][ land][ at][ Rs.2.00][ lakhs]and steps were initiated for recovery of money, which was already paid to therespondent Nos.1 & 2, on the ground that there was excess payment.

4. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 approached this erstwhile High Court by way ofW.P.No.7169 of 2010 contending that Award had been passed beyond the timeframed under Section11-A of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 andthattheAward would subsequently lapse. The learned Single Judgevide judgmentdated 23.11.2016 heldthat the delay of four(04) yearsfromthedateofpublication of the declaration under Section 6(1) and[the][ date][ of][ award][ was]sufficient to hold that there was violation of Section 11-A of the Land AcquisitionAct,1894andsubsequently,set-asidetheproceedingspursuant tothenotification under Section 4(1), dated 27.06.2005,withadirectiontoissueafresh notification under the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and[Resettlement][ Act,][ 2013.]

5. Aggrieved by the said order. M/s. A.P.TRANSCO has[filed][ the][ present][ Writ]Appeal.

6. HeardSri.V.V.Sathish,learnedcounselfortheappellants/res pondentNos.4 & 5 and Sri.P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. It appears that the respondent No.2 had passed away during the pendencyof the Writ Appeal and the respondent No.6 has brought on record as his LegalRepresentative.

8. Sri. V.V.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits thatthe rigour of Section 11-A of the Act would not be applicable in a situation whereprovisions of Section17(a) had beeninvoked, and possessionof land wastaken over after payment of 80 % of the compensation.the rigour of Section 11-A of the Act would not be applicable in a situation whereprovisions of Section17(a) had beeninvoked, and possessionof land wastaken over after payment of 80 % of the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in Delhi Airtech Services PvtLtd., and Another Vs.State of U.P., and Another^

10. Sri.P.PrabhakarRao,learnedcounselfortherespondentNos.1&2disputes the said contention. He would contend that the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India, in the aforesaid case, does[not][ laid][ down][ the][ law][ that]Section 11-A would not be applicable in cases, where 80%[ of][ the] compensationhas been paid after taking possession of the land under[ 17][ (a)][ of][ the]LandAcquisitionAct,1894.Learnedcounsel wouldalsocontendthatthecompensation should have been calculated on the market[value]of Rs.4.00lakhs,whereas,compensation wascalculatedatRs.3.50lakhsperacre.

Subsequently,thepaymentmadebytheauthorities,whiletakingthe\possession, does not amount to 80% of the compensation payable. He wouldsubmit that the respondent authorities had reduced the market value of the landto Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre in the Award.

11. Sri.V.V.Sathish, learned counsel for the appellants, would point out to acomputer printout showing that O.P.No.15 of 2010 before the learned SeniorCivil Judge, Nandigama was closed on19.06.2014 and alsotheprint outshowing that the petitioner in the said case was respondent No.1and hadengaged an Advocate. Learned counsel would contend that the respondentshaving exercised their remedy of approaching the Court for enhancement ofcompensation, could not have maintained the Writ Petition.computer printout showing that O.P.No.15 of 2010 before the learned SeniorCivil Judge, Nandigama was closed on19.06.2014 and alsotheprint outshowing that the petitioner in the said case was respondent No.1and hadengaged an Advocate. Learned counsel would contend that the respondentshaving exercised their remedy of approaching the Court for enhancement ofcompensation, could not have maintained the Writ Petition.

12. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Airtech ServicesPvt. Ltd., case was summarised in paragraph No.27 of the said judgment.Theextract of paragraph No.27 reads as under:

27. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The provision contained in Section 11A of the Act, 1894 shallbe applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority[has][ not]complied with the requirement of sub-section (3A) to[ 17]of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty percentum[of][ the]estimatedcompensationbeforetakingpossessionsincepossession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken inaccordance with law and the vesting is not absolute.be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority[has][ not]complied with the requirement of sub-section (3A) to[ 17]of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty percentum[of][ the]estimatedcompensationbeforetakingpossessionsincepossession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken inaccordance with law and the vesting is not absolute.(i>)If the requirementis complied and possessionis takenaftertendering and paying eighty per centum, though thereis needto pass an award and pay the balance compensation within[a]reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A of Act,[1894][ will][ not]apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition[to]lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right[of][ land][ loser]tendering and paying eighty per centum, though thereis needto pass an award and pay the balance compensation within[a]reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A of Act,[1894][ will][ not]apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition[to]lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right[of][ land][ loser]

in such case is to enforce passing of the award and[recover][ the]compensation.compensation.(iii)Intheinstant case thoughSection11Aof Act,1894hasbecome applicable, in the changed circumstance we deemitproper to mould the relief instead of holding the acquisition[to]have lapsed. Hence for the reasons stated above, we[direct][ as]follows:(a) The respondentsshall construe 09.06.2008 as therelevantdateanddeterminethemarketvalueprevailingasonthatdateapplyingthe yardstickunder Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land.become applicable, in the changed circumstance we deemitproper to mould the relief instead of holding the acquisition[to]have lapsed. Hence for the reasons stated above, we[direct][ as]follows:(a) The respondentsshall construe 09.06.2008 as therelevantdateanddeterminethemarketvalueprevailingasonthatdateapplyingthe yardstickunder Act, 1894 in respect of the acquired land.(b)To calculate the statutory benefits on such amountincluding interest, the same shall be determined bytaking into consideration the date of the Section 4notification dated 17.04.2002 since the appellant wasdispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to the same.including interest, the same shall be determined bytaking into consideration the date of the Section 4notification dated 17.04.2002 since the appellant wasdispossessed on 04.02.2003 pursuant to the same.

(c) Thedateonwhichthefreshawardispassedpursuant to this judgment and communicated shall bethe date of cause of action for seeking enhancementof compensationif the appellant is dissatisfied withthe quantum of compensation offered.pursuant to this judgment and communicated shall bethe date of cause of action for seeking enhancementof compensationif the appellant is dissatisfied withthe quantum of compensation offered.

(d) The compensation determined in this case shall notgive the cause of actionto any other land loserwhose land is acquired under the same notification[to]seek re-determination of compensation.give the cause of actionto any other land loserwhose land is acquired under the same notification[to]seek re-determination of compensation.

(e) The appellant shall be entitled to the cost incurred[in]these proceedings.”these proceedings.”

13. In view of the aforesaid ratio, the provisions of Section[11][ A][ of][ the][ Land]Acquisition Act, 1894, would not be applicable, where[80%][ of][ the][ compensation]has been paid at the time of taking possession of the[land][ under][ Section][ 17][ (a)]of the Act. The only remedy, available to the land[loser,][ would][ be][ to][ insist][ upon]an early delivery of the Award and payment of the compensation.Acquisition Act, 1894, would not be applicable, where[80%][ of][ the][ compensation]has been paid at the time of taking possession of the[land][ under][ Section][ 17][ (a)]of the Act. The only remedy, available to the land[loser,][ would][ be][ to][ insist][ upon]an early delivery of the Award and payment of the compensation.

14. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the compensation shouldhave been calculated on market value of Rs.4.00 lakhs, for which they havegiven consent. However, 80% of the compensation was[paid][ on a][ calculation][ of]

Rs.3.50 lakhs and therefore, requirement of Section 17 (a) of the Act, havenotbeen made. The respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition,at paragraph No.6 have stated they had initially negotiated at market value ofRs.4.00 lakhs per acre but subsequently, accepted the reduced market valueatRs.3.50 lakhs per acre by signing the affidavit on 20 Rupees Stamp Paper. Insuch circumstance, it would have to be held that the acquisition authorities havepaid 80% of the tentative compensation fixed at that point of time. In view of thebinding law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofDelhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd,it must be held that the delay in passing theAward would not affect the acquisition process or the vesting of the land withthe State. In these circumstances, the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of thelearned Single Judge, dated 23.11.2016. No order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shallstand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR

To.

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh,Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam,[Krishna]District.District.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer,Vijayawada, Krishna District.Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4. One CC toSri. V V Satish Advocate [OPUC]

5>5^ ^y

■/

y

5. One CC to Sri. P Prabhakar Rao Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

[OUT]

7. Three CD Copies

GSC

HIGH COURTDATED;29/04/2025

ORDERWA.No.1531 of 2017

ALLOWING THE WA

WITHOUT COSTS

XH MAY 2025. g-aCurrent beciion ^y/>4£espATC«!2^