P. Sadasiva Reddy vs Divisional Engineer, Operation A.P.S.E. Board and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—It is distressing to note that the petitioner''s property was taken over promising him to pay compensation at the market rate by the State Electricity Board and having taken possession of the same under that promise, has subjected him to litigation which has lasted nearly 5 years. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Marala Village and he was approached by the State Electricity Board officials i.e., respondents 1 and 2 requesting him to part with his valuable land of Ac. 1.51 cts. comprised in S. No. 105-1 of Marala village, Bukkapatnam Mandalam of Ananthapur District for erecting an electricity sub-station. The petitioner in good faith, that the same is required for emergent public purpose and specific promise; made by respondents 1 and 2 to pay the market rate, has parted with the said land. The possession of the said land was taken over by respondents 1 and 2 and the electricity sub-station was erected and it is now catering the needs of the public so far so good. But the petitioner who has parted with the land on the specific promise of being compensated in terms of cash with the market rate was left in lurch by the respondents 1 and 2. It is ununderstandable as to why respondents 1 and 2 had to involve the revenue officials when the transaction was direct inter se, the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Either the third respondent or any other revenue official are nobody in so far as this transaction is concerned. The matter was referred by the 1st respondent to the Sub-Collector, Penukonda stating that as the land was taken over with the consent of the petitioner, initiation of land acquisition proceedings was felt not necessary and asking the latter to send P.V. statement duly indicating the cost of the land so as to arrange payment to the petitioner, making it clear that the petitioner was pressing for early payment. This did not evoke any response from the Sub-Collector. According to the basic valuation register, the rates of the land as on the date of parting possession of the same was Rs. 20 per square yard and that is very clear from the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam dt. 31-8-1987. The Mandal Revenue Officer addressed a letter dt. 11-6-1988 to the second respondent routing the same through the Sub-Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda, computing the compensation at Rs. 1,51,000 basing on the said certificate of basic value issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam. What is more, even the statement of the petitioner was obtained by the Mandal Revenue Officer and it is ununderstandable as to under what provision such a statement was obtained by the third respondent. Be that as it may, the compensation was not paid to the petitioner and that prompted the petitioner to get issued a notice u/s 80 of C.P.C. Pursuant to this notice, the District Collector, Anantapur, has asked the report of the Sub-Collector, Penukonda and the Sub-Collector by his proceedings dt. 11-4-1989 replied the petitioner stating that since the land was taken over by the State Electricity Board Officials and as they have requested to drop the land acquisition proceedings, he does not come into picture at all and he has to approach the second respondent herein for payment as he was the person who has taken possession of the land directly without the knowledge of the Land Acquisition Officer. Then the petitioner has addressed to the 2nd respondent for payment of compensation on the basis of the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam, but of no avail. Hence this writ petition.

Now counter has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 as also by the third respondent. The third respondent has stated that on the basis of some lands which have been sold, the compensation could be paid only at the rate of Rs. 4,899 per acre and for total land, it would be Rs. 7,397-59 paise. The same stand is taken by respondents 1 and 2.

At the out-set, the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2 on the one side and the 3rd respondent on the other in their counters, should be deprecated. The petitioner was specifically promised that he would be paid the compensation as per the market rate and even though the respondents 1 and 2 had requisitioned the land for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, realising that there will be a delay in the said proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 had voluntarily suggested to the petitioner to part with the land on the specific promise that he will be paid the compensation at the market rate as indicated by the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam, pertaining to this land basing on the basic valuation register which is prepared by the statutory authorities was Rs. 20 per square yard as on that date. The petitioner was agreeable for receipt of this. But the respondents 1 and 2 were unrelenting. On the other hand, they reiterate their stand through their counter. I have to say that the approach of the respondents is sadistic. Having promised to pay the petitioner the compensation at the market rate and when the market rate was certified as Rs. 20 per square yard basing on the statutory register i.e., basic valuation register, the respondents 1 and 2 were bound to pay the same and could not resile from their promise earlier made. It has to be borne in mind that respondents 1 and 2 represent A.P. State Electricity Board which is created under Statute which is a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. It should not play dirty tactics in this fasion and try to dupe a citizen in this lawless fashion. Now it is for this Court to consider what is the relief which can be granted to the petitioner as the respondents 1 and 2 are going back from their promise to pay the market rate which was already fixed at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard basing on the statutory document. In fact the third respondent has accepted the same and reported for payment of the same vide his proceedings dated 11-6-1988 and absolutely there is no justification to deviate from the said stand. The conduct of the respondents in the instant case shows the narrow mindedness of the authorities which come within the ambit of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and who are expected to be fair and just to the subjects.

As the rate is being disputed by the respondent and as the petitioner is not accepting the deviated stand of the respondents to receive Rs. 7,397-59 ps. as against Rs. 1,51,000/- there is no alternative for the respondents 1 and 2 but to initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As such, the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to forthwith initiate Land Acquisition proceedings for the land in question and the 3rd respondent shall forward the same to the Sub-Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda for taking steps under Land Acquisition Act and for publishing notifications like Section 4(1), Section 6, Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, conduct award enquiry, pass the award and pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as early as possible, but not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of this order for completing the entire process including the payment of compensation as stated above.

That apart the petitioner shall be entitled for an equitable interest of 7 �% on the market value to be fixed from the date of his dispossession to the date of payment in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Chandra Bansi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, .

The writ petition is allowed accordingly, with costs, and the petitioner is entitled for two sets of costs of Rs. 1,000/- each.