BOVILLA SUBBAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals arise out of the common order passed in two writ petitions bearing W.P.Nos.11982 and 13268 of 2018, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, which were preferred against the respondents' action of not paying compensation to the appellants/writ petitioners for Indigovats and open wells situated in the subject lands, which were acquired for construction of Somasila irrigation project.

(2.) Concededly, the land acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of an Award No.5/2008-09 dtd. 4/3/2009 and Award No.5/2015-16 dtd. 30/3/2016, with the consent of the parties as mentioned in Para No.5 of the impugned order. While the matter stood thus, the appellants/writ petitioners' claim to be agitating their grievances for compensation for the structures standing on the land by filing representations, however, they did not initiate any proceedings for making reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894"). The appellants/writ petitioners preferred the writ petitions in the year 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation for Indigovats and open wells after following due procedure under the Act, 1894.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, we are of the view that the writ appeals must fail not only on the grounds dealt with by learned single Judge, but also for the reason that for acquisition of certain piece of land, there cannot be two separate land acquisition proceedings i.e., one for land and the other for structures standing thereon. The very definition of the expression "land" as referred in Sec. 3(a) of the Act, 1894 provides that the said expression includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus, if the appellants/writ petitioners were aggrieved by non-inclusion of the Indigovats and open wells in the subject Award, which are things attached to the subject land, for seeking inclusion of the same in the Award, the appropriate remedy for them was to move before the District Collector under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1894 for making reference to the District Court. But, no such application was ever made by the appellants/writ petitioners before the concerned Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, nor there is a prayer in the writ petitions for making such reference, if the petitioners had already made such prayer at an earlier point of time. Moreover, the Award was passed in the year 2009 and the writ petitions came to be filed in the year 2018. Thus, the writ petitions also suffer from unexplained delay and laches.