Boini Gangaiah vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, J.—Heard both sides.

Petitioner seeks a writ, direction or order, more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-notify the land published in the Gazette u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act admeasuring about 500 sq.yards in S.No. 235 situated at Malakpet which was taken from the petitioner on 12-1-1979 for widening their Railway sub-way under the bridge at Malakpet under the Land Acquisition Proceedings.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent issued notice u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land and also dispensed with the enquiry u/s 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner filed his claim petition, participated in the enquiry but curiously informed that no notice of passing of the award was issued to the petitioner as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner was under the impression that no award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. But when he came to know that the respondent has passed the award in his proceedings No. B/401/81, dated 23-9-1986 he filed an application for copy of the award and after obtaining copy of the award, he has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. He submits that apparently the award is a defective one and in the earlier version while dealing with the title of the parties, the third respondent Land Acquisition Officer has discussed the same in favour of the petitioner but ultimately came to the conclusion that the land belongs to one Mr. Ramachandra Rao and the Executive Engineer (R&B) took possession of S.No. 23/A and did not adjudicate the title of the petitioner. Relying on the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, he says that it was mandatory on his part to adjudicate, as no notice has been served on the persons to whom compensation is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, either to reject title of any interested person or to uphold the title of the person. As such award is not sustainable.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the notice required under the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the petitioner, and the petitioner participated in the acquisition proceedings before the third respondent, and the third respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the owner of the said land but awarded compensation to one Ramachandra Rao describing the land as part of the S.No. 23/A, Malakpet. But the notice of passing of the award as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was not served, for no compensation was awarded by the third respondent to the petitioner. The main point for consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to a notice when the award is made. Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:

Award of Collector when to be Final:

(1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector''s Office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.

The expression ''person interested'' is defined in Section 3 which is as follows:-

"the expression person interested'' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act, and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land".

Sub-section (2) of Section 12 is mandatory, for the Collector has to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.

The word ''person interested'' has to be liberally construed so as to include all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in title to the land or in the quantum of compensation, and whose claim has been considered in the award.

In the instant case, as it is not disputed that the notice was sent to the petitioner under various provisions of the Act except under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. In such a situation; I consider the petitioner to be the interested person and entitled to a notice when the award is made. As I have already stated that notice of passing of the award which is mandatory on the part of the authorities and the petitioner admittedly having not been served with the notice of passing of the award, I direct the third respondent to serve notice on the petitioner within a period of four Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after service of notice, the petitioner is at liberty to take any action available to him under the Land Acquisition Act, and the third respondent shall pass appropriate orders if such applications are filed before it by the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.