Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KAVALI & ANOTHER V/S NAGISETTI VENKATASUBBAIAH & ANOTHER , decided on Monday, September 25, 2006.
[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Civil Revision Petition No.1028 of 2006 & 4573 of 2006 . ] 25/09/2006
Judge(s) : L. NARASIMHA REDDY
Advocate(s) : The GP Arbitration. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page







#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2007 (4) ALT 842"  ==   "2007 (2) Andhwr 183"  







    Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Land Acquisition Act ? Section 18 23(1-A) - revision petition - Awards were passed and not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the respondents sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The trial courts to certain extent and in the appeals enhanced compensation this Court enhanced the same further. One of the controversies was as to whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court extended the said benefit and it was affirmed by this court in the appeal- the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed in part directing that the respondents herein shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This order shall not have any bearing on the rights of the respective parties on other aspects. It shall be open to the respondents to enforce the decree on other aspects.Cases Referred:Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh (2003 (2) ALD 94 (SC) Special Deputy Collector LA Srisailam Project v. P.Ch. Hussainaiah (2004 (3) ALD 101)     (Petition under Section 115 of CPC. to revise the order dated 22-8-2005 and made in E.A.No.189/2002 in E.P.No.16/1997 in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Kovur.)Common Order:A common point arises for consideration in these two revisions. Hence they are disposed of through a common order. The lands of the respondents in the CRPs are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for short ?the Act? for public purpose. Awards were passed and not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the respondents sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. Compensation was enhanced by the trial courts to certain extent and in the appeals this Court enhanced the same further. One of the controversies was as to whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court extended the said benefit and it was affirmed by this court in the appeal. The respondents filed E.P.No.16 of 1997 (Civil Revision Petition No.1028 of 2006) and E.P.No.37 of 2000 (Civil Revision Petition 4573 of 2006) claiming the balance of compensation. In the calculation memo the respondents included the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the said EPs the petitioners i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer raised an objection as to the extension of the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the ground that the award was passed before 30.4.1982. Through orders under revision the respective executing courts rejected the plea and held that the petitioners are liable to be paid the said amount an that it is not at all open to the executing court to travel beyond the scope of the decree. Hence these two Civil Revision Petitions. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act particularly those in relation to the amending Act 68 of 1984 are very clear as to the entitlement for the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and there was no basis for the courts below in rejecting the contentions advanced by the petitioners. He submits that the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh (2003 (2) ALD 94 (SC) held that Section 23 (1-A) does not apply to the case where the award was passed before 30.4.1982 and this court has followed the same in Special Deputy Collector LA Srisailam Project v. P.Ch. Hussainaiah (2004 (3) ALD 101) and in that view of the matter the executing courts ought not to have extended the benefit under the said provision. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar and Sri S. Laxma Reddy learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the respective CRPs submit that once the decree passed in the OPs has become final as to the extension of benefit under the said provision it is not at all open to the petitioners to object to the same much less to the executing courts to entertain the objection. They submit that the executing court had considered the matter from the proper perspective and decided cases and the orders under revision do not warrant any interference. The only grievance of the petitioners is as to the extension of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the respondents herein. It is a matter of record that the respective trial courts have extended the said benefit to the respondents and that the same was affirmed by this court in the appeals. In the calculation memo filed in the respective EPs the respondents have included the amount payable under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The petitioners took objection to the same and the executing court overruled the objection. There is absolutely no quarrel with the observation made by the courts below to the effect that an executing court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. However it is equally well settled that when a patent illegality touching upon the jurisdiction had crept into the decree it can certainly be examined at the stage of execution also.In Ghaziabad Development Authority?s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court held as under:?Section 23(1-A) is not applicable where the Award has been made by the collector before 30.4.1982.?It is not in dispute that in the instant cases the award was passed before the said date. All the same this benefit was extended to the respondents and the decrees become final. At the first blush it may appear that extension of benefit under a particular provision is a pure question of fact and it may not have any bearing on the jurisdiction of the court as such. This very question was examined by the Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust v. Gokul Narain (1996 (4) SCC 178). After referring to the various decided cases it was held that extension of a benefit which was otherwise impermissible under the Land Acquisition Act strikes at the very jurisdiction and authority of the court. It was further held that such a question can be raised at any stage including the one at the execution of decree. The same was followed by this court in P.Ch. Hussainaiah?s case (2 supra).The judgments referred to above do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the executing courts. Once in has emerged that the awards in the instant cases were passed before 30.4.1982 the respondents are not eligible to be extended the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In view of the judgment referred to above it was permissible for the petitioners to raise the said objection in the execution proceedings also.For the foregoing reasons the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed in part directing that the respondents herein shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This order shall not have any bearing on the rights of the respective parties on other aspects. It shall be open to the respondents to enforce the decree on other aspects.