LexLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-RDO, CHEVELLA DIVISION RANGA REDDY DISTRICT versus A. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 1 S.C.R. 324 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-RDO, CHEVELLA DIVISION RANGA REDDY DISTRICT v. A. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2011) JANUARY 12, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) read withs. 17 (as C amended in Andhra Pradesh) - Land acquisition for public purpose - Issuance of preliminary and final Notification - Award not passed within stipulated period - Subsequent publication of another preliminary and final Notification - Relevant date for determination of market value for the D purpose of compensation - High Court took the relevant date as the date of publication of the second preliminary Notification and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,0001- per acre - On appeal, held: State Government had clearly abandoned the earlier Notifications by issuing the E subsequent Notifications - High Court was justified in holding that the compensation should be determined with reference to the date of publication of the second preliminary notification - Quantum of compensation awarded by High Court also does not call for interference since it was determined with F reference to a sale transaction just a few days prior to the publication of the second preliminary notification. A Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 03.01.1990 for acquisition of certain land for a G public purpose and the final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 10.01.1990. On 18.09.1991 the possession of the acquired land was taken. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to estimate the H 324 • LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A. RAMACHANDRA 325 REDDY compensation. The respondent-land owners filed a writ A petition. The High Court directed the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award. However, the award was not passed within the stipulated period of two years. The State Government being of the view that the acquisition had lapsed, published a fresh preliminary B Notification in the Gazette on 19.11.1993 and the final declaration on 16.2.1994. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. The compensation was determined the rate of Rs. 24000/- per acre taking the relevant date for determining the market value as c 03.01.1990, the date of the first preliminary Notification. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ per acre taking the relevant date as 03.01.1990. On appeal, the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 150,000/- per acre. The 0 relevant date for determining the compensation was taken as 19.11.1993. Therefore, the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer filed the instant appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in Andhra Pradesh, no doubt provided that the land would vest absolutely in the government even before making the award, on taking possession of E the land needed for a public purpose. But as the Land F Acquisition Officer failed to estimate the compensation and tender 80% thereof to the land-owners, as required under section 17(3A) of the Act, the land-owners approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to pass the award. As possession had been taken as the lan,d had already G vested in the government, the land owners could not and did not challenge the acquisition in the said writ pe' 1tion. Keeping these facts in view, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition with a specific direction to make an 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A award before 11.02.1992. Admittedly, the award was not 1 made and the order of the High Court was not complied with. t,lso, under sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act, inserted by a State Amendment in Andhra Pradesh, if the Collector does not take possession of the land within B three months from the date when State Government directs under sub-section (4) of section 17 that the provisions of section 5A would not apply, the effect would be that the provisions of section 5A would apply and the period of 30 days referred to in section 5A would be c reckoned from the date of expiration of three months. In these peculiar circumstances, the government after considering the facts and circumstances, with a view to avoid further challenge, issued a fresh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.