Anukonda Mahalaxmi vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation amount of Rs.12,123.07ps. in O.P.No.18/84 to the extent of the share held by the petitioner in respect of the land acquired for public purpose as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential directions.

The petitioner, who is an octogenarian filed the writ petition stating that she is the owner of Ac. 1-30 cents in S.No.56/2A of Arallakatta village, Karapa Mandal, East" Godavari District. The land was acquired and the award was passed on 9-4-1983 in Award No. 1/93. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the civil Court u/s 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. A sum of Rs.24,265/- was deposited before the learned subordinate Judge in O.P. No. 18/1984. The learned subordinate Judge by an order dated 9-11-1984 held that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,123.07ps. towards her share. It is the case of the petitioner that she did not withdraw the amount. Therefore, she filed an I.A. No. 110/1986 for releasing a cheque for a sum of Rs.12,123-07ps. and she came to know that only Rs.49,85ps. was available. On verification, it was found that some other person filed LA. No.3677 of 1985 and a cheque was issued for Rs.l2,123.07ps. It is her case that she never filed a cheque petition earlier and that one practising advocate by name Sri S.N. Huda, forged her signature and obtained the cheque in collusion with the staff of the Court. The learned subordinate Judge referred the matter to the CBCID but no action was being taken. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that she has been deprived of the legitimate amount by playing fraud. Therefore, she seeks appropriate direction,

Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 5th Respondent, which does not dispute the factum of deposit of the amount in the sub-Court.

Since it is a serious matter, where amount is alleged to have been paid to some other person even though there is no cheque petition by the original claimant. This Court appointed Mr. V. V.S. Rao to assist this Court as amicus curiae. The Bar Council of A.P. was also impleaded as party in this writ petition. Entire records from O.P. No.18/ 1984 were also called for from the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kakinada and I perused the same. It is seen that by judgment dated 9-11 -1984 the learned subordinate Judge held that the petitioner is entitled for 1/2 share in the compensation deposited by the Government. The amount was apportioned between Smt. Subba Laxmi and Smt. Maha Laxmi (writ petitioner). But, however, on 15-11-1984, Smt. Subba Laxmi filed a cheque petition and a sum of Rs.I2,123-07ps. was released to her. Later one advocate by name Sri S.N. Huda said to have been holding vakalat for Smt. Maha Laxmi, filed a cheque petition for issue of a cheque in his name for a sum of Rs. 13,633.30ps. representing half of the share of the petitioner-writ petitioner. He also filed I.A. No.3363/95 alongwith out of order petition for passing order to encash the F.D.R. amount. One more payment schedule was filed on 19-11-1985, While on the advanced receipt the said advocate signed in all these petitions, schedules, affidavits thumb impressions stated to be of Smt. Maha Laxmi were affixed. Thereafter, the learned subordinate Judge ordered for encashing the F.D.R- and the same advocate Mr. S.N. Huda purportedly holding vakalath for Smt. Subba Laxmi also filed IA No. 3776/1985 with two petitions. One said to be of Smt. Subba Laxmi and another of Smt. Maha Laxmi (writ petitioner) seeking payment of interest of amount on half share amount of compensation of both Smt. Subba Laxmi and Smt. Maha Laxmi. The said advocate also filed another petition I.A. No.3677/85 for issuance of cheque for the half share of compensation of Smt. Maha Laxmi (writ petitioner). It appears that the Court has ordered cheque petition and the cheque was issued in the name of the advocate. Subsequently, one Mr. Pothula Subba Rao, holding vakalath for Smt. Maha Laxmi filed I.A. No. 1100/86 for issue of a cheque in favour of the petitioner towards her half share with interest. It was found that half share was already released in favour of advocate Mr. S.N. Huda, it is the case of the petitioner that she never gave vakalath to Mr. S.N. Huda and some fraud was played by the said advocate in collusion with the staff of the Court. Even though notice was sent by the Court to the advocate, no positive response was forthcoming. However, it appears that a complaint was made by the Court to the police and it is not known as to what is the stage of the investigation. But, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the advocate Mr. S.N. Huda who received the cheque had expired.

The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the payment of the amount which was not paid to her and the said amount was paid to some other person by name Mr. S.N. Huda who did not have any vakalath for Smt. Maha Laxmi (writ petitioner).

Though, I am very much disturbed at the method and manner and opted by the Court of the subordinate Judge, Kakinada in dealing with the matter, I am not inclined to go into the details for the reasons as set out hereinafter, but the question is whether the petitioner is entitled for the amount ?

Mr. V. V.S. Rao has stated that there are number of lacunae in the procedures adopted by the Court and that there appears to be some suspicious transactions which lead to payment of the amount to the advocate, who was not authorised. Though a wrong payment to an unconcerned person, was made, yet this cannot deprive the petitioner to receive the amount from the Court. It is true that no action can be taken against Mr. Huda as on date, since he is no more, but, at the same time, the petitioner cannot be put to sufferance on account of fraud played by the advocate and irregularities committed by the Court. Mr. V.V.S. Rao submits that the State is liable to compensate the innocent party who suffered on account of the acts of the Court. Even though the Government has deposited the amount in the Court and the Court had a duly to pay to a correct person, yet, if the amount is paid to unconnected person, still the State is liable to compensate the innocent party. He relied on the decision of PA. Choudary, J., in K.K. V. Veerabhadra Rao v. Superintendent of Excise, Visakhapatnam, W.P. No.5803/78, dt 29-8-1980. The said matter arose under the provisions of A. P. Excise Act. Stay was granted by the High Court, preventing the Excise Contractor from exploiting the lease for a particular period. The Court held that the Contractor is entitled for damage from the Court for the period he could not do the business on account of the stay granted by the Court. The learned Judge observed as follows :

"The State is an abstract legal concept. In it is concentrated the supreme coercive power. From the point of view of constitutional law the word "State" may be described as a collection of legal powers. These legal powers are exercised by the State through its three well known great departments of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. It is not an accident that our Constitution describes and delineates the powers of these three branches under the Chapter heading ''State''. Under a written Constitution, such as ours, the powers and functions of these three organs of the State are defined and derived from the same common source which is the Constitution. In their allotted spheres of activity each one of these organs represents the abstract legal entity called the State as fully as the others. It follows, therefore, that by their acts as much as by their omissions these three organs of the State acting in their respective spheres of authority bind the State fully. There cannot therefore be any difference in law between an act of breach of a public contract committed by the Executive and a breach of such a contract committed by orders of a superior judiciary. In fact Kelsen refused to recognise any vital difference between the Executive and Judiciary. He treated both of them jurisprudentially at indistinguishable. It follows, therefore, that the orders of stay that this Court passed and by which the petitioner was injured were in the ultimate analysis attributable to the State itself This Court can act only in the name of the State and only for and on behalf of the Slate. This is particularly so in relation to the power and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which provides for public law remedies. The State is therefore, in my opinion, responsible for the acts of this Court. Thus the Slate becomes liable to compensate the innocent party that suffered by the acts of this Court,"

I am in full agreement with the principles decided in the above case. It is unfortunate that on account of the omissions on the part of the Court administration, an innocent old lady was deprived of a meagre compensation amount of over Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, following the said decision, it is to be held that the State is liable to pay the amount,

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions :

(i) That the 3rd Respondent shall ascertain within 3 weeks the principal amount together with interest @ 12% p.a from the dale of the receipt of the amount by the sub-Court till the date of the order of this Court and send intimation to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 who shall take steps to deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of sending the intimation. On such deposit, the amount shall be released to the petitioner by way of Account Payee cheque after proper identification.

(ii) The District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry shall cause discrete enquiry as to the circumstances under which the cheque was issued to Mr. S.N. Huda and fix. the responsibility on the concerned staff including the judicial officer and submit the report to the High Court for taking necessary action.

(iii) The District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry while conducting enquiry as directed above shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment

(iv) The persons who are found responsible for the omission shall be directed to deposit the amount and the same shall be credited to the State towards the reimbursement of the amount directed to be paid as above.

This Court records appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by Mr. V. V.S. Rao in disposing of the case.

The records in O.P. No.18/1984 shall be transmitted to the District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, for necessary action.