AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Petitioner herein filed a declaration under the Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 along with his four major sons before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kavali. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling area by the petitioner surrendered Ac. 42-80 cents of dry land of the Government and the later had also taken possession of the land on 8-8-76.
After the A. P. Land Reforms Amendment Act 10 of 1977 came into force, the petitioner filed a petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kavali, for fresh determination of his holding as per Sec. 4-A of the Amending Act 10 Tribunal held that the petitioner was in excess by only Ac. 5-60 cents and he was entitled for reconveyance of Ac. 37-20 cents of land our of Ac. 42-80 cents held to be in excess on an earlier occasion Thereafter the petitioner sent petitions to the Revenue Divisional Officer Kavali and to the Tahsildar, Kovur to implement that order. Subsequently he came to know that the District Collector. Nellore decided on 3-10-77, under sub-s, (5) of S. 7 of the A. P. Land Reforms Amendment Act 10 of 1977 not to reconvey the land to the petitioner but to pay him in lieu thereof an amount payable under the proviso to that section. On coming to know that the preliminary valuation of the property was being prepared by the Tahsildar, Kovur, the petitioner has sent some particulars to the Tahsildar through registered post on 26-1177. According to the petitioner ignoring the material supplied by him the District Collector had arbitrarily fixed the amount of compensation in a sum of Rs. 21,390/- on 10-7-78 and forwarded it to the Government for its approval. That amount was calculated at Rs. 500/- per acre as market value plus 15% solatium thereon. The Government took two years to approve and finally gave its approval on 11-91981. According to the petitioner the market value fixed at Rs. 500/- per acre is very much below the market value of the land. Therefore, he received that amount under protest on 10-101980. Thereafter he sent a petition to the district Collector through registered post on 20-11-1980 requesting him to refer the matter to the civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 read with the proviso to sub-sec. (5) of Section 7 of the A. P. Land Reforms Amendment act 10 of 1977. The petition was received in the Collector''s office on 21-11-1980. Since the petitioner had no information either according to his request or rejecting it, he had filed this writ petition on 5-11-1981. In this writ petition he seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent, i.e., the District Collector, Nellore, to refer the matter under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to the Sub-Court, Nellore against the determination of compensation by him.
No counter has been filed by the respondents. The question for my consideration is whether the petitioner can ask for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the decision of the District Collector under the proviso to sub -sec.(5) of s. 7 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Amendment Act 10 of 1977. S. 7 of the Act is a long section and it is not necessary for me to refer to the entire section. Suffice it if I refer to sub-sec. (5) of that section which reads as follow :
"(5) where, as a result of the fresh determination of excess land or approval of fresh surrender of excess land or selection of the land to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the principal act as amended by this Act, any land vested in the Government u/s 11 of the principal Act is to be retransferred to the person who surrendered such land , the land shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed be re-transferred to such person, on repayment of the amount paid to him by the Government in respect of the land, and where such land was allotted or transferred to any person in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the principal Act prior to the said date, it shall be lawful for the District Collector to resume the land from the person to whom the land is so allotted or transfer to the allottee or transfer to the allottee or transferee any other land vesting in the Government subject to the provisions of Section 14 aforesaid.
Provided that where the District Collector considers that the resumption of such land is likely to cause undue hardship to the allottee or transferee thereof, he shall, subject the approval of the Government pay to the person who is entitled to receive the amount in respect of the land under the principal Act, in lieu of re-transferring the land , a sum equal to the amount that would have been payable for such land as if a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued for the acquisition of that land on the first day of January, 1975, after deducting the amount already paid to him in respect thereof."
According to the proviso if the District Collector considers that the resumption of such land is likely to cause undue hardship to the allottee or transferee thereof he shall, subject to the approval of the Government, pay to the person who is entitled to receive the amount in respect of the land under the principal Act, in lieu of they retransferring the land, a sum equal to the amount that would have been payable for such land as if a notification under sub-sec, (1) of S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued for the acquisition of that land on the first day of January 1975. If a person is aggrieved that he has not been paid proper compensation then he must have a remedy. No such remedy is provided in the Act. But it does not mean that he can be without a remedy. Admittedly when the Legislature held that he should be paid compensation as if the land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, then it means that he will have the remedy available to him under the Land Acquisition Act. If so he could seek a reference to the civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if he is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner could ask for a reference Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has already filed a petition before the District Collector, Nellore on 20-11-1980 to make such a reference. I, therefore direct the District Collector, Nellor to refer the matter to the civil Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, within one month from the date of receipt of this order by him.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.
Petition allowed.