AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.23476 of 1997. Writ petitioner is the appellant. She filed the said writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest till the final award is passed and consequently to quash the award dated 13-5-1997 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Uppal, Hyderabad as the same is passed in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.
A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. One Suit. Bhagirathibai was the owner of land measuring Ac.271-18 guntas known as ''Shikarga'' in Anantasagar, hamlet of Anantagiri village, Vikarabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. For the purpose of reserve forestation, the Government issued notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 7-7-1970 proposing to acquire the entire extent of land. In the preliminary valuation, the Land Acquisition Officer valued the entire land at Rs.13,64,744-89 ps. Later an award was passed by the L.A.O. for a compensation of Rs.3,69,959-71 ps. Challenging the same the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8624/1989 to quash the said award on the ground that the L.A.O. committed mistake in passing the award for only Rs.3,69,959-71 ps. That writ petition was disposed of on 4-7-1991 directing the authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act from the stage of Section 9 proceedings under the said Act onwards. It was also ordered that the claimant is entitled to withdraw the interest on the amount of compensation. Subsequent to the above order dated 4-7-1991, again the authorities committed the same mistake what they have committed earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12670 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14-12-1995 directing the authorities to pass award at an early date. Pursuant to the said order, the authorities have passed orders determining the total compensation payable at Rs.1,31,162, thus reducing the earlier award and further ordering that the balance amount (i.e., the amount arrived at after deducting the sum of Rs.1,13,162 from the sum of Rs.3,69,959-71 ps) be recovered from the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of recovery etc., the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23476 of 1997 contending that reducing the compensation which was awarded by the L.A.O. is not correct; fixing the award second time is not in confirmity with the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the orders of the authorities are otherwise bad in law.
The learned single Judge went through the records particularly to" know whether the requirement as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was complied with or not. The learned single Judge found that there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector on 19-6-1996 itself. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge runs thus:
"On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed before this Court relevant papers, in original, and submits that the approval was already granted to the authority who passed the award by the competent authority on 19-6-1996 and thereafter the award was passed on 13-5-1997 and it was only sent for counter-signature to the Joint Collector on 16-6-1997 and not for approval for passing the award and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. He further submits that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act have been duly complied with and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
A perusal of the inspection report of the Joint Collector dated 19-6-1996, it is clear that after inspection of the land the amount has been fixed at Rs.200/- per acre and the same was approved by the Joint Collector on 19-6-1996 itself after spot inspection. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the award was passed without obtaining the approval of the Joint Collector is incorrect."
On the other contentions, the learned Judge found that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, and dismissed the writ petition.
Sri M. Ramarao, learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same contentions, in this appeal, which were urged before the learned single Judge. According to him, the learned Judge is not correct in holding that there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector; that the learned Judge is not correct in dismissing the writ petition; that there is huge difference between the initial award and the final award and the same is without any basis (i.e., the preliminary valuation of the land was fixed at rupees thirteen lakhs and odd, the initial award was passed for Rs.3,69,959-71ps and finally it was reduced to Rs.1,31,162/-, without any basis). He submits that the final award passed for Rs.1,31,162/- by the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act as against the initial award passed forRs.3,69,959-71ps, is arbitrary and illegal.
In opposition to the above submissions, Ms. Vidyavathi, learned Government Pleader for Forests supported the order of the learned single Judge. According to her, the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is no doubt mandatory, but there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector and thus there was no illegality on the part of the authorities in passing the award. She secondly submitted that no illegality has been pointed out by the writ petitioner in reducing the award amount from Rs.3,69,959-71ps to Rs.1,31,162/-, because the initial award was based on incorrect information. She finally submitted that the order under appeal does not warrant interference in this appeal.
In order to know whether there was any approval or otherwise of the award, we went through the order of the learned single Judge and the records and we are satisfied that there is full compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Regarding the other contention relating to reduction in the amount awarded, we may state that it is a question to be considered by the Reference Court, since it is stated that already reference has been made- to the civil Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. We have carefully perused the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Verghese and Others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others, , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court, in that decision (in paragraphs-31 and 32) observed thus:
"It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) l.Ch.D.426 = 45 LJCH 373) which was followed by Lord Roche in AIR 1936 253 (Privy Council) , who stated as under:
"(W)here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another Vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh, and again in Deep Chand Vs. The State of Rajasthan, . These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others, and " the rule laid down in AIR 1936 253 (Privy Council) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law,"
It is true that when a particular mode is prescribed under any Act or Statute for doing a particular act, the authorities are bound to follow the same and any deviation will render the action taken illegal. The above cited ruling of the Supreme Court in Babu Verghese''s case (supra), with great respect, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case on hand, there is full and absolute compliance with the requirements of first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and what the authorities were supposed to do was completely done in compliance with the statutory provisions. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was sent to the Joint Collector for approval. In our view, the said action is not contrary to the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vitiating the proceedings.
We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this appeal will not come in the way of the reference Court to determine the claimant''s case for just and adequate compensation, on the basis of material available, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or in the earlier proceedings that have taken place.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, subject to the above observations. No costs.