IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 22947 of 2008 Between: 1 Nuka Reddy Seshamma W/o. Rama Chandra Reddy R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 2 Nuka Reddy Narayana Reddy W/o. Pedda Subba Reddy R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 3 Chinthakayala Chinna Venkataiah S/o. Venkata Swamy R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 4 Chinthakayala Venkata Swamy S/o. Venkataiah R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 5 Sirivaram Narasinhulu S/o. Penchalaiah R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. 6 Yerrapothula Yellaiah S/o. Yellaiah R/o. Kothapalli Village. H/o. Kommuru, Konapuram Post, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Collector (Land Acquisition) Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS) Sankarapuram, Kadapa, Kadapa Dist. 3 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Somasila Project, Unit - IV Rajampet, Kadapa Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to award interest on the market value, solatium and additional market value from the date of 4 (1) notification i.e., 7-2-1995 to date of realization instead of from the date of 28-A applications i.e., 18-6-2002 on par with the judgment and Decree of the District Judge, Kadapa, dated 27-2-2002, in LAOP.No.41/2000 and pay the same to the petitioners herein pursuance of their applications filed under Section 28-A dated 18-6-2002 and pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. N.Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.22947 of 2008 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 21-10-2008. 2. Heard Sri Subba Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition. 3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to award interest on the market value, solatium and additional market value from the date of 4(1) notification i.e., 7-2-95 to the date of realization instead of from the date of 28-A applications i.e., 8-6-2007 on par with the Judgment and Decree of the District Judge, Kadapa, dt.27-2-2002, in LAOP.No.41/2000 and pay the same to the petitioners herein pursuance of their applications filed under Section 28-A dt.18-6-2002 and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated by the petitioners that they are the residents of Kothapalli village. They were having houses in the said village. Respondents herein already acquired the houses/structures belonging to the petitioners and others in the village for Somasila Project. It is stated that the respondents also acquired petitioners’ houses and other structures at Kothapalli, H/o.Kommuru village, Nandaluru Mandal, Kadapa District for the purpose of foreshore submergence under 330 contour of Somasila Project. Accordingly the respondents issued 4(1) notification on 7-2-95 and Section 6 was published on 28-2-95. The petitioners’ houses and structures are part and parcel of the said notification. Further it is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award vide Award No.1/95-96, dated 20-10-95 fixing the compensation. Aggrieved by the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the claimants filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking for reference for enhancement of compensation with regard to structures. But some how the petitioners herein who are illiterates and due to lack of proper advice could not file applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference in respect of their structures. It is further stated that the applications filed by some of the claimants under Section 18 were numbered as L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa. The District Judge, Kadapa after conducting detailed trial and enquiry vide its Judgment dated 27-2-2002, in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 answered the reference by enhancing the compensation for houses and structures for Sq.Meter by 100% over and above the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also stated that after disposal of the said L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 on 27-2-2002, the petitioners came to know about the same with villagers, and immediately they applied for copy of the application of the Judgment on 14-3-2002 and the copy was made ready on 10-4-2002 and the same was delivered on 16-4-2002. It is further stated that 28-A application was filed within time i.e., on 18-6- 2002, after excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy within three months as provided under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The same was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent herein and entries were also made in the 28-A register and no objection with regard to limitation was never raised by the 3rd respondent. Further it is stated that the petitioners made several representations to the respondents herein to dispose of their applications under Section 28-A and pass Award in terms of L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dated 27-2-2002. But the respondents went on postponing the matter on the ground that appeals are pending before this Court against the Judgment in similar L.A.O.Ps. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said batch of appeals in part filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, reducing the compensation from 100% to 80% and awarded all statutory benefits such as interest on solatium and additional market value as per the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Further it is stated that the reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 has awarded interest on the market value, solatium and additional market value from the date of notification i.e., 7- 2-95 @ 9% for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of realization. The reference Court further awarded 12% additional market value per annum on the enhanced market value from the date of notification ie., 7-2-95 to till the date of passing of Award i.e., 27-2- 2002. Further it is stated that in pursuance of the Judgment of this Court in Batch of Appeals confirming of the reducing 100% to 80% the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 was settled before the State Legal Service Authority, Hyderabad camp at Kadapa at 80% on the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein passed an Award – Award No.14/07-08 dated 16-2- 2008 under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act. All the petitioners herein was awarded the same market value that has been awarded to the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dated 27-2-2002, but however awarded interest on the market value @ 9% for one year and 15@ thereafter from the date of application filed under Section 28-A i.e., 18- 6-2002, instead of awarding interest from the date of 4(1) notification i.e., 7-2-95, as has been awarded in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dated 27-2- 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Kadapa, aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. It is also stated that apart from the said irregularity, the 3rd respondent failed to award interest on solatium and additional market value as in the case of L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dt.27-2-2002. Further it is stated that under Section 28-A of the Amended Land Acquisition Act (68 of 1984) the Land Acquisition Officer shall re-determine the compensation on the basis of the Award of the Court. The said Section further mandates that the amount of compensation payable to the claimants may be re- determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. But in the instant case, contrary to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the 3rd respondent deliberately and intentionally failed to award statutory interest on solatium and additional market value on the basis of the Award of the Court in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000, dt.27-2-2002 and violated the Judgment and Decree of the District Judge, Kadapa in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dt.27-2- 2002. It is also averred that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in declining to award interest on solatium and additional market value from the date of 4(1) notification i.e., 7-2-95 but awarding interest from the date of submission of 28-A applications i.e., 18-6-2002 is not only arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction but with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioners of their statutory right. Further it is stated that there is no justification for the respondents in refusing to award statutory interest on total compensation i.e., market value, solatium and additional market value which are the components of compensation from the date of 4(1) notification i.e., 7-2-95 to till the date of realization as awarded in L.A.O.P.No.41/2000 dt.27-2-2002. It is also stated that the petitioners learnt and believe it to be true that the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India interpreting the amount of compensation held that it includes all the components of Section 23 including sub- Section 1 of Section 23 and accordingly held that interest is payable on solatium as well. It is further stated that on the similar point questioned in the present writ petition was decided by this Court in number of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.5452/2008 and in W.P.No.5378/2008 dt.24-7- 2008 etc., upholding the settled legal position that re-determination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act shall be made on the basis of compensation awarded by Reference Court including the interest and other statutory benefits and that the subject matter is squarely covered with those Judgments. The petitioners also stand on same footsteps and seeking the same relief in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, the present writ petition had been filed. 5. This Court in W.P.No.5378/06 (Patru Padmavathamma and others V. Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad and 2 others), while disposing of the writ petition observed as hereunder:- “There can be no dispute about the settled legal position that re-determination under Section 28-A of the Act shall be made on the basis of compensation awarded by Reference Court including the interest and other statutory benefits. It is brought to my notice that in identical circumstances W.P.No.13241/2008 was disposed of by this Court setting aside the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the extent of awarding interest from the date of application under Section 28-A of the Act instead of the date of Section 4(1) notification. The fact that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order to the extent of the interest awarded and holding that the petitioners herein shall be entitled to interest in terms of the Award passed by the Court of District Judge, Kadapa in L.A.O.P.No.1074 & 1075 of 2001 as modified by this Court in Appeals. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the impugned order to the extent indicated above. No costs.” Reliance also was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1765 and 1785 of 2008 (The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Irrigation and CAD department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others V. Musalikoppu Janardhan and others) wherein the learned Division Bench on 12-2-2009 while dismissing the Writ Appeals observed as hereunder:- “As noted supra, the Constitution vested a fundamental right in the owner of the property to receive compensation at a rate, which shall not be less than the market value on the pain of invalidation of any law if such a law does not make provision for such payment. While on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 28-A as above, the respondents are entitled to receive interest as awarded by the civil Court and Lok Adalath, denial of such interest, falls foul of Article 300-A of the Constitution. Therefore, when the respondents are denied the right accrued to them both under the Constitution and the express statutory provisions contained under the Act, it will be unjust to drive the respondents to undergo rigmarole of a reference under Section 30 of the Act. Indeed, in Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Limited (AIR 1991 S.C., 656) while rejecting the contention of the State that the claimants were not entitled to payment of higher interest as their cross-objections were rejected on the ground of limitation, the Supreme Court held that payment of interest is not dependant on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired, that when once the provisions of Section 34 are attracted, it is obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest and that if he fails to do so, the same can be claimed from the Court in proceedings under Section 18 of the Act or even from the Appellate Court thereafter. The Supreme Court further held that the procedural hazards cannot come in the way of a substantial right of a citizen under the Act. On such reasoning the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for the claimant to have filed separate appeals/cross-objections before the High Court for the purposes of claiming interest under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petitions and granting relief to the respondents instead of relegating them to the alternative remedy under Section 28- A (3) of the Act. One other reason for us to reject the plea of alternative remedy is that no disputed questions of facts are involved to decide the claims of the respondents. A pure question of interpretation of the provisions of the Act in general and Section 28-A in particular is involved in the case before us. Therefore, it is more desirable that such questions are decided by a constitutional Court rather than allowing a civil Court to decide the same. We therefore reject this contention of the learned Government Pleader too. For the reasons as above, the writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.” 6. Inasmuch as it is brought to the notice of the Court that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.5378/2008 also are similarly placed, the writ petition is hereby allowed in the light of the order made in W.P.No.5378/2008. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 20th August, 2009 smr