GOVERNMENT OF ANDHARA PRADESH Vs. MUSALOKOPPU JANARDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ appeals arise out of orders dated 24. 7. 2008 and 21. 7. 2008 in WP Nos. 8889 of 2008 and 2183 of 2008 respectively. The background facts:

(2.) THE lands belonging to the respondents were acquired, as they were coming under foreshore submergence of Somasila Project. In respect of the lands of the respondents in WA No. 1765 of 2008, a common notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 22. 2. 1994 and for the lands of the respondents in Wa No. 1785 of 2008, a similar notification was issued on 11. 2. 1994. Along with the lands of these respondents, lands of others were also acquired under the said two notifications. After following the due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'the LAO') passed two separate awards covering the respondents in each of these writ appeals respectively in the year 1994. Some of the landowners covered by the two notifications sought for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value. The reference proceedings pertaining to the acquisition under the notification under which the lands of the respondents in WA No. 1765 of 2008 were acquired pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, were transferred to Lok Adalath, Kadapa, which enhanced the compensation to 75% over and above the award passed by the LAO by its award dated 23. 3. 2007. In respect of the notification concerning the respondents in WA No. 1785 of 2008, the District Court, Kadapa, by its award dated 22. 5. 2002 enhanced the compensation to 100% over and above the market value awarded by the LAO. The respondents in both these writ appeals, who did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act, filed their respective applications under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the above mentioned two awards. Appellant No. 3 passed awards dated 9. 1. 2008 and 21. 8. 2007 in respect of the lands of the respondents in WA Nos. 1765 and 1785 of 2008 respectively by allowing payment of enhanced market value in terms of the above mentioned two awards, but restricted payment of interest to 9% per annum from the dates of filing of their applications under Section 28-A and to 15% per annum from the expiry of one year and till the date of payment. These two awards were questioned by the respondents in the two separate writ petitions, namely; WP No. 8889 of 2008 and 2183 of 2008 to the extent of appellant No. 3 disallowing the award of interest to them from the date of taking possession till the date of filing applications under Section 28- A of the Act.

(3.) AT the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has strenuously contended that the learned Single Judge fell into error in allowing the respondents to receive the same benefits as were allowed to the claimants in the two reference cases under the awards of the Lok Adalath and the Civil Court. He contended that interest does not form part of compensation payable to the landowner for the land acquired from him in accordance with Section 23 of the Act and that under Section 28-A, the landowners, who did not seek reference, are only entitled to payment of compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. According to the learned Government Pleader, the phrase "the amount of compensation" used in Section 28-A does not include interest payable under Section 34 of the Act and that therefore the respondents do not have a vested right in law to claim interest on par with the landowners at whose instance references under Section 18 were made and compensation enhanced. He further contended that if the respondents were aggrieved by the award passed under Section 28-A (2), they are entitled to seek reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act and that therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.