CHANDRABHANGIRIJI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A writ of Mandamus is sought for, for passing the Award in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac. 9-34 guntas in S.Nos. 28/1 and 28/2 of Bomrukunddowla village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This land was hitherto situated in Hyderabad West Taluq of Hyderabad District. Later, on formation of Ranga Reddy District, the said land was located firstly in Rajendranagar Taluq and later on formation of Mandals, in Rajendranagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. In the said land, were situated the trees, wells and also structures. Along with the above lands of the petitioners which are hereinafter referred to as "the acquired land", huge" extents of more than hundred acres comprised in adjoining survey numbers were also acquired by invoking the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Acquisition Act") A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25-3-1971 and draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 23-11-1972. While the respondents proceeded with the acquisition of other adjoining lands, for the acquired lands of the petitioners no award was passed and there was lot of delay. But the petitioners were very eagre to have the compensation paid like the similarly situated whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, award was passed and compensation was also paid, but that was delayed in so far as the petitioners, are concerned. No reason is fothcoming for such a delay.

(2.) But, strangely even while the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were subsisting, the respondents have invoked the provision contained under Section 3(1) of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 which is hereinafter referred to as RAIP Act. In exercise of the above provision, a notification was issued on 5-3-1978. Later, on 15-5-1978, possession of the acquired lands was taken over. A panchanama was prepared to that effect, but that does not disclose under which provision, the possession was taken over. While, it is the contention of the petitioner that possession was taken over under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the contention of the respondents is to the contra and their plea is that the possession was taken over under RAIP Act pursuant to Section 3(1) notification. But, the fact remains that the recitals of panchanama do not disclose that the petitioners were informed that the possession of the acquired lands was taken over under any particular statutory provision. However, petitioners assert that the possession was taken over under the Land Acquisition Act. Regardless of the rival contentions with regard to factual aspectas to whether the possession was taken over under the Land Acquisition Act or RAIP Act, the legal impact of taking over the possession of the acquired lands and the correct statutory provision traceable thereto will be discussed later. Purporting to be in exercise of the powers contained under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, a notification dated 4-1-1979 was issued seeking to withdraw the acquired lands from acquisition. Then a notification under Section 7 of RAIP Act was issued on 10-5-1979. It is admitted that no works, developmental or otherwise were undertaken by the 3rd respondent, who was the requisitioning authority after taking possession Even the determination of the compensation was not made either for requisition under Section 3(1) or acquisition under Section 7 of RAIP Act. Later, the respondents on their own thought fit to give a go-bye to RAIP Act proceedings and then invoke and the Land Acquisition Act and again draft notification under Section 4(1) was published on 29-3-1984, while Section 6 declaration was published on 19-5-1986. Notices calling upon the petitioners to file claim petition was issued on 17-6-1986 pursuant to which claim petition was filed by the petitioners. Then it was incumbent upon the 2nd respondent to make an award enquiry, pass the award, pay the compensation therefor. But, that was not done and meanwhile, the mandatory period bf two years contemplated under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which was incorporated by Amending Act 68 of 1984 was coming closure and as such, because of the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not passing the award, this writ petition was filed seeking a direction for passing the award. By order dated 7-4-1988 in WPMP 2104 / 88, a learned single Judge of this Court taking note of these factors and also time lapse under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, directed the 2nd respondent to pass the Award by 19-5-1988. The same was not complied with by the 2nd respondent and later an application in WPMP 10285/88 was filed seeking extension of time for passing the award, but the same was not granted. WVMP No. 1446/88 was filed to vacate the interim directions granted in WPMP No. 2104/88, but the same was made absolute, aggrieved by which, Writ Appeal No. 1801/88 was preferred. But, in the said Writ Appeal, the interim directions which were granted in WPMP No. 2104 / 88 were maintained as they were not disturbed and instead, an extension of six months time was granted for passing the award. While disposing of the writ appeal with the said order extending time for passing the award, the Division Bench directed the writ petition to be heard expeditiously. I do not know what is the reason for the delay caused in disposal of the writ petition. But, the fact remains that it came up for hearing before me on 7th April, 1993. Then, Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Counsel, in the course of arguments has expressed that if the respondents concede to the writ prayer, his clients i.e. the petitioners, were agreeable to freeze the date 29-3-1984 (the date of Section 4 (1) notification) as the date for computatiqn of market value. On this suggestion, Mr. R. Venugopal Reddy took time to seek instructions from his client and then report to this Court. When the matter came-up for hearing finally before me on 12-11-1993, Mr. R.Venugopal Reddy, appearing for Respondent No. 3 has reported to the Court that his client is not agreeable for any compromise and the respondents will take the order on merits. Then the matter was heard.

(3.) Mr. P. Ramchandra Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the lands of the petitioners were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act along with the lands of others and when the lands of others were subjected to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, and compensation was also paid, there was no reason or justification for the respondent to turn back and to contend that the compensation will not be paid under the Land Acquisition Act and that the same will be paid under RAIP Act. His contention is that inspite of the interim directions granted by mis Court and not being disturbed in the Writ appeal, with impugnity the respondents have violated the same and now that two years lapsed, a fresh notification has to be issued under land acquisition Act so that the petitioners can get the compensation which will be prevalent as on the date of such notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.