AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Acting CJ
The respondents herein filed W.P. No. 21414/94 claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-appellants to treat them as land losers in terms of G.O.Rt.No.424, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (PR-I) Department, dated 15-7-1988, as certified by the fourth respondent.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed scheme under which the Company or the Corporation at whose instance the lands were acquired, were obliged to provide job to the land-oustees. In the case of the appellants, the lands of the respondents were acquired by issuing notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on February 4, 1988 and on February, 24, 1988; the awards were passed on June 3, 1988 and March 17, 1990.
Noticing that the provisions of the G.O. were misused, the Government prescribed the criteria for purposes of determining the land-oustees in G.O.Ms. No. 310 dated 11-11-1991. For purposes of implementing the scheme, the appellants applied the criteria as laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 310 and negatived the claim of the respondents. That led the respondents to file the above said writ petition which was allowed by the learned single Judge directing the respondents to treat the petitioner-respondents as land losers/land oustees. in terms of earlier G.O. Rt. No. 424, dated 15-7-1988. The correctness of the order of the learned single Judge is in issue in this writ appeal.
Shri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that as the cases of the respondents came for consideration after they succeeded in the reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided by the Subordinate Judge, Warangal, and as by that time the criteria for determining land-loser/ land-oustees was changed in G.O.Ms. No. 310, so the respondents are not entitled to be considered for providing employment We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that the lands of the respondents were acquired by the same notification, by which the other persons were considered under G.O.Rt.No.424, held that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the criteria laid down in the said G.O.Rt.424. In our view, the order of the learned single Judge is just and equitable. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is accepted, we would be dividing the owners of the land into two classes, without there being a rational basis, depending on the fortuitous circumstance-date of the decision of the civil Court. In our view as the respondents'' lands were acquired under the same notification, they are entitled to the benefit which was in force on that day and their rights, if any, cannot be denied with reference to the order passed by the Civil Court subsequently.
In short, in our view, the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification is the criteria for application of subsequent G.O., namely, G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 11-11-1991. Those whose lands are acquired after the passing of the G.O.310, their eligibility will be determined under that GO. But those whose lands were acquired prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 310, their eligibility will have to be determined with reference to the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.424. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.