DISTRICT COLLECTOR KAKINADA Vs. P NAGABHUSHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the reference before the Full Bench in the Writ Appeal may be stated in nutshell as follows : Respondents are agriculturists and were deprived of their agricultural property in the month of April 1991 by the State for the purpose of digging Canal for Yeleru Reservoir. According to the respondents, they were dispossessed from their lands without due process of law and, as such, had to approach this Court by filingW.P. No. 24993 of 1995 assailing the action of the authorities in having deprived of them of their property and not paying any compensation to them. Interim order was passed in the writ petition directing the authorities to make payent of 80% of the market value of the land and in order to legalise possession to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Writ Petition was disposed of finally on 30-3-1998 with a direction to the Collector (Land Acquisition) to proceed to make award under the provisions of the Act. The Collector passed award No. 1 of 1999 on 30-1-1999. Notices under Section 12 of the Act were issued in the first week of February, 1999. The amount of compensation as offered in the award was paid to the respondents whereafter they submitted applications under Section 18(1) of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation seeking reference to the Civil Court for determination of the amount of compensation. Respondents in the applications stated that at the time the amount of compensation was offered to them, they had orally expressed their intention that they are receiving it under protest. They were misguided by the concerned officials that proest in writing has to be made in the application addressed to the Collector (LA) under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the applications were filed within the period of limitation before the Collector (LA) seeking reference to the Civil Court. When no steps were taken to forward the references, the respondents approached this Court and filed Writ Petition seeking direction to the Collector (LA) to forward the reference to the Court in accordance with law for determination of the amount of compensation. The Writ Petition was vehemently opposed on the ground that since the respondents had received the amount without any protest, therefore, it was not permissible to make any reference. Learned single Judge decided the writ petition by order dated 29-3-2001 placing reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Medakv. N. Sangaiah, (2000) 3 Andh LD 43 : (2000) 2 ALT 519 wherein it was held that since the claimants had filed their application within time, that itself would show that they were not satisfied with the amount awarded by the LAO and their protest is obvious. The learned single Judge thus set aside the order of the LAO in not forwarding the reference and a mandamus was issued to forthwith refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal was filed by the State.

(2.) At the time of admission of the appeal before the Division Bench, various decisions were cited on the question. The Bench observed that there is divergence of opinion in the decisions rendered by this Court, therefore, the appeal was admitted on 12-11-2001 and the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The precise question on which reference is made is contained in the order aditting the appeal. It reads : Having regard to the submission that there is a divergence of opinion in the decisions rendered by this Court and having regard to the question as to whether the claimants who failed to protest at the time of receiving the compensation can file application within the stipulated time seeking a reference to the Civil Court and whether acceptance of the amount without protest amounts to waiver of the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, we are of the view that the matter should be heard by a Full Bench.

(3.) Subsequently, the other Writ petitions wherein similar question arose for consideration were also directed tp be tagged on to this appeal.