L A O Vs. P SARANGA PANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 1312 of 1997 is directed against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 547 of 1993 where as Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1997 is directed against the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 548 of 1993 by the State. Since the subject matter in both the appeals is one and the same, for the purpose of convenience, both the appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts as far as the extent of land, survey number and ownership of the land are not in dispute. The appellant herein submits that the land in question was earlier taken over by the Government for construction of Kakatiya Canal without initiating any land acquisition proceedings. Later, the Government acquired the land on 2-1-1990 after issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') which was objected to by the respondents herein. Then Land Acquisition Officer passed Award on 8-10-1990 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard as against Rs. 400/- per square yard as claimed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the respondents sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Civil Court and the same is still pending. Since there was no order with regard to the interest and solatium in the award passed by the L.A.O., the respondents filed the above two writ petitions seeking said benefits and the writ petitions were allwed directing the Government to pass supplementary award as requested by the clamants. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 'Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a supplementary award by granting the additional amount under Section 23 (1A) and solatium at 30% of the market value under Section 23 (2) of the Act within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the petitioners have already been awarded these amounts in the reference sought for under Section 18 of the Act, it is not necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass any supplementary Award." Aggrieved by the said orders of this Court, the present appeals have been filed and obtained stay. Before granting stay, the land acquisition officer had passed supplementary award in compliance with the order of the learned single Judge. It is submitted that the Government got the cheques ready for the said amounts and they are yet to be delivered to the claimants. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as any benefits have to be decided in O.Ps. which are still pending but not in the Writ Petitions and as such the impugned order is quite incorrect. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in Govt. of A.P. vs. N. Venkataiah and J.R.V. Subba Rao vs. Dist. Collector. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits as conferred under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had ignored to consider the same the claimants were right in approaching this Court and the learned Single Judge rightly directed the Land. Acquisition Officer to pass the supplementary Award. The learned Counsel for the claimants further submits that pendency of reference has nothing to do with the claimants' claim and thus urged to dismiss the appeals.

(3.) The conduct of the Government on one hand in keeping the cheques ready and on the other hand contending that the claimants are not entitled for statutory benefits unless O.Ps. are decided is something like blowing hot and cold. The controversy in these appeals is whether the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits when O.Ps. are pending. When the compensation is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is needless to say that statutory benefits will be ordered to the compensation. In these cases, the reference is not at the instance of the State but at the instance of the claimants. It means the claimants are dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. Such pendency of reference at the instance of the claimants will not come in the way of the Land Acquisition Officer to disburse the amount covered under the award. Since the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2-1-90 this has to be taken as fresh notification. If that is so, the claimants are entitled for statutory benefits by virtue of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.