Mootha Venkateswara Rao (D) Tr. Lrs vs Godhavari Co-Op Milk P.Union Ltd.& Ors

2. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 8th June, 1978, the Government of Andhra 2 Pradesh acquired 5 acres of land in Survey No. 212/1B of Ramanayyapeta in Kakinada Municipality for the purpose of construction of a mini-dairy. The appellant herein was the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer, who passed an award fixing the market value of the land at Rs.28,750/- per acre. Possession of the lands was taken on 31st August, 1978. The appellant, herein, challenged the acquisition itself by way of a Writ Petition No.4082 of 1979, which was dismissed on 9th July, 1984. The appeal, which was preferred from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being Writ Appeal No. 670 of 1985, was allowed on 7th February, 1991. The matter was carried to this Court by the respondents herein in SLP (C) No.19302 of 1991, which ultimately ended in a compromise. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 1st September, 1992, in pursuance of the Memorandum of 3 Settlement filed by the parties, wherein it was agreed that the date of Notification would be treated as 7th February, 1991, for all purposes, and, accordingly, the market value of the lands as prevailing on the said date was to be taken for determination of compensation.

3. Subsequent to the said order passed by this Court, the matter was again taken up by the Reference Court. After taking into consideration further evidence which was led and the materials on record, the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.800/- per square yard and aggrieved by the same the respondents herein preferred an appeal to the High Court, being First Appeal No. 836 of 2003. During the hearing of the appeal, the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the parties was referred to and while on behalf of the respondents herein, it was contended that the Reference 4 Court had wrongly fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.800/- per square yard, on behalf of the appellant herein, particular emphasis was laid on the fourth paragraph of the Memorandum of Settlement, which reads as follows:-

9. On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that 9 attempts had been made to deposit the compensation amount with the Divisional Officer, Kakinada, by sending Demand Drafts for amounts of Rs.2,13,87,500/- and Rs.11,14,34,033. An application was also moved on behalf of the respondent State before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking permission to deposit the said amount, but such prayer was rejected on 22.8.2007, on the ground that the Special Leave Petition was pending before this Court. A Civil Revision Petition filed against the said order is still pending decision in the High Court. Mr. Rao submitted that ultimately by an order dated 11.10.2007 the High Court granted leave to the State authorities to deposit the decretal amount before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Pursuant thereto, the amount 10 was said to have been deposited on 22.10.2007.

10. It was submitted that admittedly there was a delay in making the deposit in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement which formed the basis of the order dated 1.9.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3476 of 1992 filed by the Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation, but such delay was not intentional as various proceedings intervened in the meantime. Mr. Rao submitted that in the appeal, being F.A. No.836 of 2003, filed by Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation, the respondent No.2 herein, an interim order was passed by the High Court on 23rd April, 2003, staying the operation of the Order dated 23rd January, 2003, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.800/- per square yard as on 7.2.1991, 11 which continued to be operative till the appeal itself was dismissed by the High Court on 9.6.2006. It was also submitted that immediately after the pronouncement of the Judgment by the High Court, steps were taken to deposit the compensation amount as per the Memorandum of Settlement by making an application before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, praying for leave to make such deposit in the execution proceedings which had been commenced in the meantime. While granting such prayer, the High Court directed that stay of the execution would be subject to the condition of the respondent herein depositing 1/4th of the enhanced compensation in two equal instalments within four months from the date of the order, failing which the said petition would stand dismissed. Since the respondents were unable to deposit the said amount they filed an application before the High Court seeking extension of time to make 12 such deposit. On the other hand, the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No.6832 of 2003 for restitution of the possession of the acquired land. However, the High Court by its order dated 30.4.2003 dismissed the Writ Petition and granted the respondents a further period of two months for making payment of Rs.2 crores in instalments within a period of two months and stayed further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

12. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it is clear that the only question which we are called upon to decide is whether having regard to the conditions imposed in the Memorandum of Settlement, the acquisition proceedings would stand set aside in view of the default committed by the State and its authorities in depositing 14 the amount awarded within the time stipulated in the Settlement.

14. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Since, the deposits are said to have already been made pursuant to the permission granted by the High Court, the claimants to the said compensation will be entitled to withdraw the same upon proper identification.

15. There will be no order as to costs.