ABHINANDANA HOUSING (P) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY IT Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of construction, housing projects and developmental works. The land admeasuring Acs.17.31 guntas in survey No. 67 situated at Adibatla Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Ranga Reddy District was acquired by the first respondent for a public purpose, namely, extension of Hardware Park by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). The petitioner appears to have purchased number of plots under registered sale deeds in the layout in survey No. 67 and the said plots were sold to a number of persons. Therefore, the Chairman of the petitioner made a representation on 15.9.2006 requesting to allot alternate residential plots in lieu of the residential plots in survey No. 67, which are acquired. By impugned letter dated 19.9.2006, the second respondent informed the petitioner company that an award has already been passed and that there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) to allocate alternate land.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Sec. 31(3) of the Act to contend that discretion is vested in the respondent to allot alternate land and that the second respondent failed to exercise such discretion in a proper manner. He placed strong reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam and Secy., Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Daulat Mal Jain . Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jage Ram and Ors. Vs. Union of India 1996 LACC 173 (SC) : 1995 Supp (4) SCC 615 and a recent unreported judgment of this Court in Rock View Enclave Grey Hounds Employees Mutually Aided Housing Society Ltd., Vs. The Secretary, Government of A.P. W.P. No. 17271 of 2006 dated 23.8.2006 to contend that the Act does not contemplate allotment of alternate land to the owner of the land and that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) granting compensation is considered to take care of all aspects of the damage suffered by the owner of the land by reason of the acquisition.

(3.) After completion of the mandatory requirement of publishing a notification under Sec. 4(1) and declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Act, the LAO has to enquire into the market value of the land and pass an award regarding the true area of the land, the amount which in the opinion of LAO should be determined as payable and if necessary - apportionment of said amount among all the persons interested in the land. While passing such an award, the LAO is required to consider various factors. When once an award is passed, it is binding on the Government as well as the owner of the land. Though the owner is given a right to seek a reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value, in which event, the Civil Court is required to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the damage sustained by the person interested, and the consequence of the acquisition of the land like compulsion to change the residence/place of business by the owner etc. Apart from that, there is no other provision in the Act which enables the owner of the land to claim allocation of alternate land in lieu of the land acquired.