1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner herein, with the following prayer:

               “… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondent No.3 in failing to deposit the compensation amount including 30% solatium and interest into civil court as per award No. A/389/2004, dated 03-07-2006, from date of taking possession property to till date of payment is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ...”

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of House premises bearing No.12-10-177 & 178, situated at Seethaphalamandi, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”). According to the petitioner, she has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the subject property from the date of its purchase, and that there is no rival claimant and no dispute regarding her title and possession over the subject property. In connection with the widening of the road at the Seethaphalamandi 'T' Junction for the purpose of construction of a flyover over the railway gate situated at Seethaphalamandi, she was constrained to forgo an extent of 300 square yards of the subject property and, consequently, to demolish and remove the structures standing thereon at considerable expense to herself.

3. Respondent No.3 initiated land acquisition proceedings vide Case No. A/389/2004, in respect of an extent of 229.68 square yards comprised in premises bearing No.12-10-177 & 178, situated at Seethaphalamandi 'T' Junction, at the railway over-bridge, for the aforesaid purpose of road widening. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act of 1894”), was accordingly issued. The District Collector, Hyderabad, invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act of 1894, which invocation came to be approved, and the notification was published in the A.P. Gazette No.74 dated 16.12.2005. A draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 thereafter came to be issued by the Collector, Hyderabad, for the stated purpose of road widening.

4. Respondent No.3, being the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, M.C.H., Hyderabad District, issued notice to the interested parties and fixed the award enquiry on 23.02.2006, on which date one of the interested persons K. Bhaskar Rao S/o. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, appeared and the matter stood posted to 07.03.2006. On the said date, the claimant filed a claim petition together with the documents in possession, including the registered sale deed evidencing title over the subject property.

5. The claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square yard for the extent under acquisition, and that also filed a copy of the registered document bearing No.1275/1965 in support of the claim. Thereafter the respondent No.3 proceeded to pass a mechanical Award without due consideration of the documents placed before him, and without recording, anywhere in the Award, the manner in which the awarded compensation was proposed to be deposited under Section 31 of the Act of 1894.

6. Upon making enquiries with the Office of respondent No.3 regarding disbursal of the compensation, the petitioner was informed that the matter stood referred to the Civil Court, whereupon she promptly approached the concerned Civil Court and filed a claim petition, initially before the Court of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, which petition came to be subsequently transferred to and renumbered as O.P.No.1044 of 2013 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent No.3 has, till date, neither deposited the awarded amount in the said Court nor paid it directly to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, despite having furnished a copy of the registered Sale Deed evidencing and claiming title over the subject property, the respondent No.3/Land Acquisition Officer (herein after to be referred as ‘LAO’), failed to consider the same and proceeded to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, solely on the ground that the said registered copy of the Sale Deed produced by the petitioner was not clearly legible and could not ascertain the title. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is at an advanced age of about 82 years even as on the date of institution of the Writ Petition have not received compensation awarded by the LAO.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent/LAO represented that the matter had been referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act,1894, the petitioner, upon making enquiries and pursuing the matter, came to know that the LAOP number furnished by the respondents did not pertain to the subject property at all, but related to some other property. Acting bona fide upon the information furnished by the respondents, the petitioner filed an application seeking impleadment before the Reference Court or Civil Court; however, the said application was rejected on the ground that the LAOP number relied upon by the petitioner did not find place in the reference allegedly made by the LAO.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being the person claiming lawful title and entitlement over the acquired property, cannot be compelled to approach the Civil Court in the absence of any subsisting dispute or rival claim as to the ownership or apportionment of compensation in respect of the subject property. The provisions of Section 30 of the Act contemplate a reference where there exists a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation or the person to whom the same is payable, and do not envisage a reference merely because the LAO is unable or unwilling to decipher an old registered document produced by the claimant. The petitioner has not only been deprived of the compensation lawfully due to her for all these years, but has also recently learnt that, in respect of the adjacent properties covered under the very same acquisition, the Reference Court, upon a reference made by the LAO seeking enhancement of compensation, has enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,380/- per square yard to Rs.18,000/- per square yard in LAOP. No.1044 of 2013. In these peculiar and wholly avoidable circumstances attributable to the respondents, the petitioner submits that he is entitled to be placed on the same footing as the similarly situated claimants and to receive compensation at the rate awarded by the Reference Court in respect of the adjacent properties, including the compensation and consequential statutory benefits payable in accordance with law.

10. Heard Sri N. Sreenivasa Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for GHMC. Perused the record.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

11. In the light of the rival pleadings and submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the following points arise for determination:

               (i) Whether the Land Acquisition Officer is empowered, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to refer a dispute to the Civil Court merely on the ground that a document produced by the claimant in support of clamimants title is not legible or decipherable, in the absence of any rival claim in respect of the property under acquisition?

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

12. The controversy involved in the present case is whether the LAO is empowered to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 merely on the ground that the claimant has furnished a document which is not legible or decipherable. In this context, it is apt to refer to Section 30 of the Act of 1894, reads as follows:

               “30. Dispute as to apportionment. When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.”

13. The very foundation for exercise of the power under Section 30 is, therefore, the existence of a dispute either as to apportionment or as to the person to whom the compensation, or any part thereof, is payable. The provision does not contemplate a reference merely because the Collector is unable to satisfy himself about the contents of a document produced by a claimant.

14. In the present case, there is no material before this Court to show that any third party asserted a rival claim to the subject property or to the compensation payable in respect thereof. The record also does not disclose any dispute as to apportionment. The sole reason attributed to the petitioner for withholding the compensation and making the reference was that the copy of the registered document produced by her was not clearly legible.

15. In such circumstances, the appropriate course for the Land Acquisition Officer was to call upon the petitioner to produce a legible or certified copy of the document and thereafter determine the entitlement in accordance with law. The inability to decipher a document cannot, by itself, be elevated into a dispute within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act of 1894.

16. The reference made by respondent No.3 to the Civil Court, in the absence of any rival claim or dispute answering the description contemplated by Section 30, therefore cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly liable to be set aside.

17. The next question concerns the petitioner’s claim for the benefit of the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court in respect of adjacent properties. The record indicates that the enhancement from Rs.5,380/- to Rs.18,000/- per square yard was granted by the Reference Court in LAOP No.1044 of 2013, arising out of the same acquisition proceedings.

18. A claim for redetermination of compensation on the basis of an award of the Reference Court in respect of other land covered by the same Section 4(1) notification is governed by Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. The said provision is specifically intended to enable similarly situated persons who had not sought a reference under Section 18 to seek redetermination of compensation on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

19. Section 28-A, however, prescribes a period of three months from the date of the award of the Court for making such an application, subject to exclusion of the date of the award and the time requisite for obtaining a copy thereof. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the period of limitation under Section 28-A commences from the date of the award of the Reference Court and not from the date on which the applicant acquires knowledge of such award. The beneficial character of Section 28-A does not authorise the statutory period of limitation to be disregarded.

20. Consequently, a direction permitting the petitioner to make a reference under Section 18 at this stage cannot be granted. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 03.07.2006 and the statutory period prescribed for seeking a reference under Section 18 has long since expired, subject, of course, to such question of limitation as may arise in a properly instituted proceeding in accordance with law.

21. Likewise, this Court cannot, merely on equitable considerations, enlarge the statutory period prescribed under Section 28-A. The petitioner’s explanation that she was pursuing the proceedings on the basis of the representation made by the respondents regarding the purported Section 30 reference is relevant to the circumstances in which the delay occurred, but cannot by itself extend the period expressly prescribed by Section 28-A.

22. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the compensation already determined in her favour merely because the respondents purported to refer the matter to the Civil Court without establishing the existence of a dispute contemplated by Section 30. The said reference having been found unsustainable, the respondents are bound to take consequential steps for payment of the compensation awarded under Award No.A/389/2004 dated 03.07.2006, together with the statutory benefits admissible under law.

23. As regards the enhanced compensation awarded in LAOP No.1044 of 2013, it is appropriate to leave the petitioner to such remedy as may be available to her in law. This Court does not, in the present proceedings, adjudicate upon the maintainability or limitation of any application that may be made by the petitioner under Section 28-A or any other provision of law, nor does this order confer any exemption from the statutory requirements governing such remedy.

CONCLUSION

24. For the foregoing reasons, the reference made by respondent No.3 under Section 30 of the Act of 1894 cannot be sustained, there being no demonstrated dispute as to apportionment or as to the person entitled to receive compensation. The same is accordingly liable to be set aside.

25. The petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation determined under Award No.A/389/2004 dated 03.07.2006, together with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits, as admissible under law.

26. The petitioner cannot, however, be granted liberty to seek a fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 at this stage. As regards the enhanced compensation awarded in LAOP No.1044 of 2013, Section 28-A is the provision which, in principle, governs a claim for redetermination by a person who had not sought a reference under Section 18. The availability of such remedy, including compliance with the limitation prescribed under Section 28-A, is left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

RESULT

27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, with the following directions:

               (i) The action of respondent No.3 in referring the claim relating to the subject property to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the absence of any dispute as contemplated by the said provision, is hereby set aside.

               (ii) The respondents shall pay to the petitioner the compensation determined under Award No.A/389/2004 dated 03.07.2006, together with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits admissible under law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               (iii) The prayer for liberty to seek a fresh reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is rejected, as such reference is subject to the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 18 and no fresh period of limitation can be created by this Court in the circumstances of the present case.

               (iv) It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as may otherwise be available to her in law in relation to the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court in LAOP No.1044 of 2013, including under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subject to all statutory requirements, including limitation. The competent authority shall consider any such application strictly in accordance with law.

               (v) The pendency of the proceedings arising out of the invalid reference under Section 30 shall not stand in the way of payment of the compensation payable under Award No.A/389/2004 dated 03.07.2006.

28. There shall be no order as to costs.

29. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.