CHIRRA PULLA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the dismissal of Writ Petition 3719/91 filed by the appellant herein seeking grant of additional benefits conferred by Central Act 68/84 amending the relevantmaterialprovisionshithertocontained under the Land Acquisition Act. Additional benefits conferred are:

(2.) Admittedly, in the instant case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14-12-1982, and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer viz., respondent No.4 herein, on 23-7-1984. Even though the Act came into force with effect from 24-9-1984, retrospective operation was given to it, as is made clear by the transitional provisions contained therein, and the aforesaid additional benefits rendered payable in respect of awards passed during the period 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 too. Therefore, no laches or lapses can be attributed to the appellant, and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the acceptance by the appellant of the amount awarded by the fourth respondent herein amounts to waiver of the claims and rights of the appellant. The aforesaid statutory additional benefits are conferred upon the persons whose property is compulsorily acquired, and the provisions conferring the same are beneficial in nature and have to be liberally construed.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader could not tell us as to how the question of waiver arises in this case so as to deprive the appellant of his statutory rights. The appellant cannot be driven to civil court for claiming the aforementioned additional benefits which the Parliament in its wisdom, conferred even retrospectively. When the fourth respondent was delegated the powers of Land Acquisition Officer and to pass award, a duty was cast upon him to award the additional benefits conferred by the statute. Failure to discharge his duties has resulted in gross inaction on the part of the fourth respondent. His action is not only illegal, but also infracted the fundamental right of the writ petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Constitutional right envisaged under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution. The Land Acquisition Officer do not become functus officio after he passes the award, as was held by the learned single Judge. The expression functus-ofticio means having fulfilled the function or discharged the duty, the authority who rendered the order or decision ceases to have force or power to deal with the matter. But, there is a case where the authority concerned i.e. the 4th respondent did not discharge his functions in awarding the amounts as contemplated under the statute and thus, failed to discharge his functions properly. To correct the same, it cannot be said that this court lacks jurisdiction. In fact, in cases of this nature depriving the persons of their property by compulsory acquisition and to comply the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of la w" and when the law relating to land acquisition mandates to give additional benefits, there was no right or authority to the fourth respondent to withhold the said benefits which the law has conferred upon the persons like the writ appellant-writ petitioner herein. The law providing for the same under Section 30 of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 is so clear that even at a glance, the same reads thus: