* THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR + WRIT APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010 % 2ND JUNE, 2010. # GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SPECIAL COLLECTOR (LA), INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. APPELLANTS VS. $ AVIRNENI RAMA KRISHNA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the appellants : GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR LAND ACQUISITION ^ Counsel for the respondents : SRI.J.U.M.PRASAD FOR R1 TO R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR FORESTS FOR R4 TO R6 < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010 2nd June, 2010. Between: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS SPECIAL COLLECTOR (LA), INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. APPELLANTS AND AVIRNENI RAMA KRISHNA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act for short) for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.11.11 cents at village Velagaleru of G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District came to a standstill because of the institution of W.P.No.15830 of 2009, questioning the power of the Collector to obtain reassessment report relating to Subabul trees. To understand the controversy in its right perspective, it needs to be placed on record that in response to a communication of the Collector regarding valuation of the trees, a report was submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District (for short DFO) to the Collector which was not accepted by him because evaluation so made was comparatively higher than the assessment made by officials of the Forest Department, East Godavari District in different claims but of similar nature, consequently a direction to the DFO to re- examine the valuation. Apprehending that re-examination would suggest evaluation on a lower side, therefore invocation of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to command the Collector not to take into account the subsequent report. 2. What has the writ court to say about the relief sought, advantageous it is to notice the relevant part of the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2009: “….However, when the competent authority is satisfied that it may be just and proper to call for reassessment report, the same cannot be found fault. … ” 3. Above reproduction from the judgment makes it clear that objection raised by the claimants’ detailed in the preceding paragraph stands turned down. Had the learned Judge stopped there, the State had no cause to come in appeal, but went further to say something more in the operative portion of the judgment, which may be noticed; “ In the light of the material placed before this Court, since this Court is satisfied with the assessment report made in relation to Subabul trees already being just and proper, the same to be adopted.” 4. It is seen that the objection stands rejected by one of the observations reproduced in the preceding paragraph of the judgment but the dictum grants the writ, creating an obligation on the State to act upon the earlier assessment of which State- appellant is aggrieved, hence this Appeal and to appreciate the challenge it is appropriate to extract clause (ii) sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. “Section 11.Enquiry and award by Collector: (1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements, made under Section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of - (i) ………………………………………………………………………….. (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and” 5. The above provision of the Act makes it clear that the power to determine the compensation vests in the Collector and the amount of compensation to which a claimant is entitled has to be determined by the Collector as per his own opinion. It goes without saying that opinion can neither be formed by hypothesis nor by imagination but on the basis of material, having relevance to the valuation of the property in question. The formation of opinion by the Collector being the principal condition, relevancy of the material or otherwise is the province of the Collector only and there being no provision to the contrary in the Act, it is for him and him alone to decide as to what material is relevant and what is irrelevant, therefore no right of objections much less enforceable one can be claimed to have vested in a claimant / person interested against reliance being placed by the Collector on a particular material during enquiry in terms of section 11 of the Act. That being the legal position a writ cannot lie to command the Collector to consider or not to consider any material relating to the determination of compensation and rejection of such objection by the Collector is not amenable to extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 6. Writ petition is not maintainable for another reason also. As said above opinion of the Collector is dependant on material. It is simple to understand that with a view to arrive at a correct valuation of the property, the Collector has to collect the material. He may call for reports from any person, persons, agencies, organizations or experts. He may seek clarification as many times as would be necessary. All these reports and clarifications are part of the process of evaluation. What material is going to weigh with the Collector in forming the opinion in respect of compensation remains within his knowledge till award is made which is the only stage when material that is relied upon by the Collector can become public, therefore until award is made, writ petition is not maintainable, being premature. 7. On the face of aforementioned view taken, a moot question would arise whether claimant / person interested would be left completely remedyless. To have the answer reference to section 18 of the Act becomes imperative which reads; "18. REFERENCE TO COURT (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award or amendment thereof, may by written application to the Deputy Commissioner require that the matter be referred by the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of service of the notice from the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section12. 3. (a) The Deputy Commissioner shall, within ninety days from the date of receipt of an application under sub- section (1) make a reference to the Court. (b) If the Deputy Commissioner does not make a reference to the Court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference, and the Court may direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within such time as the Court may fix." 8. A bare perusal of sub section (1) section 18 of the Act would show availability of a right to an interested person to apply for a reference be it in respect of the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested and sub section (2) gives him a right to raise the objections he has against the award which would include objections against the correctness as also admissibility of the material relied upon by the Collector while determining the compensation. Not only that. A remedy is also available to him If the Deputy Commissioner fails to make reference. Thus efficacious remedy to challenge the admissibility of the material being available to a person interested, ground of absence of remedy cannot be countenanced, accordingly question spelt out in the preceding paragraph is answered in the negative. 9. Now a word about the right of participation of the claimant/person interested in the enquiry referable to section 11 of the Act. Be that as it may, let there be no doubt and ambiguity that the claimant / person interested has every right of participation in the enquiry. He has a right to bring material supporting his claim to the notice of the Collector during the enquiry and has a right to participate. 10. For what is stated above, writ appeal succeeds. Judgment of the learned judge dated 4.12.2009 is set aside. However, no order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR, J. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, C.J Nagesh Babu LR COPY TO BE MARKED THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.409 OF 2010 2nd June, 2010.