AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Orders were issued in the G.O. 1st read above, specifying the circumstances in which ami the procedures to be followed for the acquisition, by the Government of India belonging to the Charitable, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the weaker sections.
Further consideration of the matter, the Government have found it necessary to further speed up the procedure involved in acquiring the lands belonging to Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the weaker sections by evolving a method under which the District Collectors concerned may take advance possession of the lands.
In supersession of the orders issued in the references 1st and 3rd above, the Government hereby authorise the District Collectors to initiate action under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire endowments lands, subject to the guidelines in the subsequent paragraphs for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. The District Collectors are also authorised to take advance possession of the lands. So identified after completing all the required formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The following guidelines be followed to achieve the objective of the present orders :
(i) In the first instance, the District Collectors concerned shall identify the Endowments Land within their jurisdiction suitable for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of the weaker sections only when no Government or other alternate land is available in the particular area This position has to be ensured by the District Collectors concerned.
(ii) While selecting the endowments lands, care should be taken to see that the small tenants are not adversely affected. The Collectors are also advised to ensure that prime and valuable lands and such other lands which are required by the Endowments Institutions for their own use are not identified for acquisition.
(iii) The Government hereby constitute the following Committee of the Officers to decide the market value for the identified endowments lands for acquisition under Land Acquisition Act.
Commissioner, Land Revenue
Commissioner, Endowments
Commissioner, Social Welfare
The market value determined by the Committee shall be final. The market value so determined shall be adopted as the market value for the purpose of passing a consequent award under the Land Acquisition Act.
The present orders are issued to facilitate speedy provisions of house sites to weaker sections. For all other purposes, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 shall be strictly applied.
The Commissioner, Endowments is directed to report to the Government by the 15th of every month the details of transactions completed under this order in the preceding month.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
J. Rambabu Principal Secretary to Government''''
Sri. M.V. Ranganatham, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the directions contained in the Government Order would apply for the acquisition of the lands owned by the Hindu Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions only, and similar directions are not issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of other Charitable and Religious Endowments, therefore, the impugned action cannot withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the Government is guilty of practicing invidious discrimination between the equals. The learned senior Counsel would also contend that the Government''s action in constituting the Committee of three officers specified in para 4(iii) of the Government Order and conferring the power on it to determine the compensation payable to the owners is ultra vires of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Elaborating this submission, the learned senior Counsel would point out that the Land Acquisition Act is a code in itself, and provides for acquisition of private lands for the public purpose, enquiry to determine the compensation payable to the owners, the right of the owners to claim compensation at the enhanced rate by seeking reference of their claims u/s 18 of the Act, therefore, the action of the Government in constituting the Committee of the three officers to determine the compensation payable to owners and making the said determination as final tantamounts to superseding the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and on that count sub-para (iii) of para 4 is liable to be struck down as ultra vires of the Land Acquisition Act.
On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State and the State authorities would point out at the threshold that the Government Order is in fact beneficial for the charitable and religious endowments; it was totally misconceived argument that the Government Order targets at the acquisition of the lands belonging only to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions; the constitution of the Committee of 3 officers and conferring on it the power to determine the compensation and making it final is confined only to the awards to be made under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act in terms of the agreement between the State authorities and owners of the land, and that finality would never come in the way of the land owners, who do not agree for consent award as envisaged under subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Act, from claiming compensation at the enhanced rate by way of reference u/s 18 of the Act.
It is well established that if a field is occupied by the law enacted by a competent Legislature, the executive by issuing executive instructions cannot meddle with the procedure or the substance of the law so occupied. Therefore, the first question which falls for consideration is whether the executive instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.456, dated 29-9-1995 have the effect of meddling with or interfering with the procedural or substantive rights of the owners of the lands.
The contentions of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner are not well-founded. After hearing the learned senior Counsel and the learned Advocate General, I do not find that the Government, in any way, has interfered with the procedural or the substantive rights of the owners safeguarded under the Land Acquisition Act. A careful reading of the impugned order makes it very clear that the guidelines contained in the Government Order are not intended to be applied by the Acquisition authorities only when they proceed to acquire the lands owned by the Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions. On the other hand, the guidelines are equally applicable to the acquisition of the lands owned by all the charitable and religious institutions and endowments. The Government Order also makes it very clear that whenever the land is to be acquired for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the society, the acquiring authority should, in the first instance, explore the possibility whether suitable Government lands or lands owned by others are available. Only when such alternative lands are not available, then, it directs for acquisition of the land owned by the Charitable and religious institutions and endowments. Here again, the Government Order has made two more concessions.
The Government Order directs that while selecting the endowments lands care should be taken to see that small tenants are not adversely affected. Secondly, it directs that the Land Acquisition Officer should ensure that the prime and valuable lands which are required by the endowments and institutions for their own use should not be identified for acquisition. I am at a loss to understand how the charitable and religious institutions and endowments are affected by these beneficial directions. Argument based on Article 14 is therefore misconceived and the same is rejected.
Adverting to the second contention of the senior Counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to state that the language employed by the Government in para 5 of the order is not happily worded. Before considering the argument of the learned senior Counsel, it is necessary to note at the threshold that sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act envisages passing of an award in terms of the agreement between the Land Acquisition Authorities and the owners of the land. Keeping this provision in mind, when we look at para 5 of the Government Order, it makes it abundantly clear that the compensation determined by the Committee consisting the three officers, namely, Commissioner (Land Revenue), Commissioner (Endowments), Commissioner (Social Welfare) would be final and the Land Acquisition Officer acting under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act would be bound by the same. But, this determination will not bind anyone else. There is nothing wrong on the part of the Government in directing the Land Acquisition Officer to abide by the determination made by its own officers if the owners of the land consent for passing the award in accordance with the determination made by the Committee of three officers. If the determination made by the Committee of three officers is not acceptable to the land owners, there is no legal compulsion for them to agree for passing the award u/s 11(2) of the Act, The State Government being a party to the agreement envisaged u/s 11(2) of the Act and since it acquires large extents of lands for various purposes throughout the State, the Government thought it necessary to have uniformity in the matter of payment of compensation that may be offered to the land owners u/s 11(2) of the Act, and for that purpose it has constituted the Committee of three responsible and highly-ranked Officers to determine the compensation payable to the owners if the latter come forward for consent award envisaged under subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Even then, the question whether this particular action of the Government in constituting the Committee and making its determination binding on the Land Acquisition Officers acting under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act violates any professorial or substantive rights of the owners of the land, remains to be answered, and the straight answer to the question is emphatic "no". In feet, the senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners was not able to point out how the impugned G.O. violates any of the provisions of the Act except meekly stating that the impugned Government Order is ultra vires of the Act. The impugned Government Order is not a piece of delegated or subordinate legislation. It is an administrative action, pure and simple, and therefore it does not confer any legal rights on the persons covered by it, and no legal action can be founded on it. The impugned Government Order merely deals with the choice of the lands of the religious and charitable institutions and endowments for acquisition to provide house-sites to the weaker sections of the Society and determination of the compensation payable to the owners and interested persons in case a consent award has to be made u/s 11(2) of the Act. These two aspects are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the argument that the impugned Government Order tantamounts to superseding the provisions of the Act is not tenable.
In the result, the writ petitions fail and they arc accordingly dismissed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.