LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-RDO, CHEVELLA DIVISION RANGA REDDY DISTRICTversusA. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.

                         [2011) 1 S.C.R. 324


A     LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-CUM-RDO, CHEVELLA
             DIVISION RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
                               v.
             A. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2011)
B
                         JANUARY 12, 2011
         [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) read withs. 17 (as
C   amended in Andhra Pradesh) - Land acquisition for public
    purpose - Issuance of preliminary and final Notification -
    Award not passed within stipulated period - Subsequent
    publication of another preliminary and final Notification -
    Relevant date for determination of market value for the
D   purpose of compensation - High Court took the relevant date
    as the date of publication of the second preliminary
    Notification and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.
     15,0001- per acre - On appeal, held: State Government had
    clearly abandoned the earlier Notifications by issuing the
E   subsequent Notifications - High Court was justified in holding
    that the compensation should be determined with reference
    to the date of publication of the second preliminary notification
    - Quantum of compensation awarded by High Court also
    does not call for interference since it was determined with
F   reference to a sale transaction just a few days prior to the
    publication of the second preliminary notification.

         A Preliminary Notification was issued under Section
    4 (1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 on 03.01.1990 for acquisition of certain land for a
G   public purpose and the final declaration under Section 6
    of the Act was published in the Gazette on 10.01.1990. On
    18.09.1991 the possession of the acquired land was
    taken. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to estimate the

H                                 324
     LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A. RAMACHANDRA 325
                       REDDY
    compensation. The respondent-land owners filed a writ         A
    petition. The High Court directed the appellant-Land
    Acquisition Officer to pass an award. However, the award
    was not passed within the stipulated period of two years.
    The State Government being of the view that the
    acquisition had lapsed, published a fresh preliminary         B
    Notification in the Gazette on 19.11.1993 and the final
    declaration on 16.2.1994. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition
    Officer passed an award. The compensation was
    determined the rate of Rs. 24000/- per acre taking the
    relevant date for determining the market value as             c
    03.01.1990, the date of the first preliminary Notification.
    The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate
•   of Rs. 50,000/ per acre taking the relevant date as
    03.01.1990. On appeal, the High Court awarded
    compensation at the rate of Rs. 150,000/- per acre. The       0
    relevant date for determining the compensation was
    taken as 19.11.1993. Therefore, the appellant-Land
    Acquisition Officer filed the instant appeals.

        Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                                  E
          HELD: 1.1 Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,
     1894, as amended in Andhra Pradesh, no doubt provided
     that the land would vest absolutely in the government
    even before making the award, on taking possession of
    the land needed for a public purpose. But as the Land F
    Acquisition Officer failed to estimate the compensation
    and tender 80% thereof to the land-owners, as required
    under section 17(3A) of the Act, the land-owners
    approached the High Court by filing a writ petition
    seeking a direction to the appellant to pass the award. As
    possession had been taken as the lan,d had already G
    vested in the government, the land owners could not and
    did not challenge the acquisition in the said writ pe' 1tion.
    Keeping these facts in view, the High Court disposed of
    the said writ petition with a specific direction to make an
    326    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A award before 11.02.1992. Admittedly, the award was not        1


   made and the order of the High Court was not complied
   with. t,lso, under sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act,
   inserted by a State Amendment in Andhra Pradesh, if the
   Collector does not take possession of the land within
B three months from the date when State Government
   directs under sub-section (4) of section 17 that the
   provisions of section 5A would not apply, the effect would
   be that the provisions of section 5A would apply and the
   period of 30 days referred to in section 5A would be
c reckoned from the date of expiration of three months. In
   these peculiar circumstances, the government after
   considering the facts and circumstances, with a view to
   avoid further challenge, issued a fresh Notification dated
   09.09.1993 (gazetted on 19.11.1993) followed by final
0 declaration dated 16.02.1994. The State Government did
   not subsequently cancel/rescind/withdraw the
   Notifications dated 09.09.1993 and 16.02.1994. The State
 . Government had clearly aband.oned the earlier
   Notifications dated 3.1.1990 and 10.1.1990 by issuing the
E subsequent Notifications dated 9.9.1993 and 16.2.1994.
   Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the second
   preliminary Notification is redundant or that first
   preliminary Notification continues to hold good. In the
   circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that
   the compensation should be determined with reference ·
F to the date of publication of the second preliminary
   notification. [Para 10] [332-B-H; 333-A-B]

       1.2 On examining the quantum of compensation
  awarded by the High Court with reference to the date of
G Gazetting of the second preliminary notification, it is
  found that the compensation award is not excessive and
  does not call for interference. It was determined with
  reference to a sale transaction dated 12.11.1993, just a
  few days prior to the publication of the second preliminary
H
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A. RAMACHANDRA 327
                  REDDY
notification in the Gazette. The High Court also made a        A
deduction of 40% in the market value disclosed by the
said sale transaction. [Para 11] [333-C-D]

     1.3 In some of the counter affidavits filed in the specia!
leave petitions by the claimants, they have alleged that
                                                                8
their special leave petitions (challenging the judgment of
the High Court and seeking higher compensation) were
dismissed as barred by time and, therefore, they may be
permitted to make a counter claim for a higher
compensation. Such counter-claims in counter-affidavits
in special leave petitions are impermissible and not C
maintainable and cannot be entertained. [Para 12] [333-
E-F]

    SatenJra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. 1993 (4) SCC 369
- distinguished.                                               D
                     Case Law Reference:
    1993 (4) sec 369         distinguished         Para 8
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 438        E
of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.02.2005 of the High_
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal
No. 4477 of 2004.
                                                               F
                              WITH

C.A. Nos. 440, 441, 442, 443, 444 & 445 of 2011.

    Anoop Choudhari, C.K. Sucharita, Nirada Das for the
A~lla~                                                         G

    Manjeet Kirpal, T.N. Rao, S.S. Dharma Teja for the
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                               H
    328      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A         R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.

        2. An extent of 24 acres in Survey No.24 of Peeram
  Cheruvu Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
  on the outskirts of Hyderabad was acquired for Andhra
  Pradesh Police Academy. For this purpose, a preliminary
8 notification under section 4(1) read with section 17 of the Land
  Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) was issued and published
  in the AP. Gazette on 3.1.1990. It was also published in two
  newspapers circulating in that locality on 12.2.1990. The final
  declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P.
C Gazette dated 10 .1.1990 (published in two newspapers
  circulating in that locality on 12.2.1990). Possession of the
  acquired lands was taken on 18.9.1991 by invoking the urgency
  clause under section 17 of the Act.

o         3. The respondents filed W.P.No.14396/1991 in the A.P.
    High Court seeking a direction to the appellant to pass an
    award. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition with
    a direction to pass an award before 11.2.1992 as the final
    notification had been published in the Gazette on 10.1.1992.
E   The award was not be passed within the stipuiated two years.
    The State government, being of the view that as a
    consequence, the acquisition had lapsed, published a fresh
    preliminary notification dated 9.9.1993 under section 4(1) of
    the Act in the A.P. Gazette dated 19.11.1993, followed by a
F   fresh final declaration under section 6 of the Act published in
    the Gazette dated 16.2.1994.

       4. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award
  dated 31.8.1996. Before doing so he appears to have sought
  legal opinion as to the date with reference to which the
G compensation should be determined. The legal opinion was
  that as possession was taken on 18.9.1991 by invoking section
  17, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under section
  11A of the Act and the fresh acquisition notifications dated
  19.11.1993 and 16.2.1994 could be ignored and the award
H could be passed with reference to the market value as on the
            LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A. RAMACHANDRA 329
                    REDDY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

            date of issue of the first preliminary notification dated 3.1.1990. A
            The Land Acquisition Officer, after referring the sales statistics
            and nature of land, by award dated 31.8.1996 offered
            compensation at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per acre with 30%
            solatium under section 23(2), additional market value at 12%
            per annum under section 23(1A) from 12.2.1990 to 18.9.1991 8
            and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period
            18.9.1991 to 17.9.1992 and at the rate of 15% per annum from
            18.9.1992 to 31.8.1996.

                 5. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, c
            the respondents-landowners sought reference to Civil Court.
            Before the Reference Court, the respondents let in evidence
            about market value as on 19.11.1993, which is the date of
            publication of the second preliminary notification. The
            Reference Court held that the relevant date of determination of
                                                                            D
            market value was 3.1.1990 (which was the date of the first
            preliminary notification), that there was no evidence about the
            market value as on 3.1.1990. · He held that none of the sale
            deeds relied upon by the landowners was relevant, as they
            were all with reference to the second preliminary notification
            published on 19.11.1993. However having regard to the E
            situation and potential of the land, it concluded that
            approximately double the amount offered by the Land
-..,.       Acquisition Officer would be the appropriate market value and
            therefore awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000 per
            acre.                                                           F
                 6. The respond<=!nts were not satisfied with the amount
             awarded by the Reference Court. They therefore filed a batch
             of appeals before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Some of
            the appeals were decided by judgment dated 16.2.2005 and G
    ...,-   some were decided by judgment dated 3.1.1996 following the
            judgment dated 16.2.2005. The High Court was of the view that
            the relevant date for determination of compensation was not
            3.1.1990 as the said preliminary notification was superseded
            by notification under section 4(1) of the Act published on
                                                                               H
                                                                                    ·~
     330      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A  .19.11.1993 and therefore the compensation had to be
    determined with reference to the said date. The High Court
    relied upon a sale deed dated 12.11.1993 (Ex. A7) relating to
    sale of a land at a distance of about 30 yards from the acquired
    lands to arrive at the market value of the acquired land as on
 '
8 19.11.1993. The said. sale deed (Ex.A7) related to a sale of
    an area of 1 acre 38 guntas (a little less than two acres) in
    favour of an educational institution for a consideration of
    Rs.490,000/- (which works out Rs.250,000/- per acre). The
                                                                           ~
    High Court rounded off the market value to Rs. 250,000/- per
c   acre, deducted 40% from the said value to make it a
    comparable transaction for determination of market value and
    consequently awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.150,000/
    - per acre. The said judgment is under challenge in these
    appeals by special leave by the Land Acquisition Officer.
D        7. On the contentions urged, two questions arise for
     consideration :
                                                                           ..
           (i) Whether relevant date for determination of market value
           is 3.1.1990 as contended by the appellant (or
E          19.11.1993)?

           (ii) Whether the compensation determined at Rs.150,000/
           - per acre requires interference?

           8. The appellant submitted that the first preliminary
                                                                           -
F'   notification under section 4(1) read with section 17 of the Act
     was gazetted on 3.1.1990 followed by a final declaration under
     section 6 of LA Act on 10.1.1990. As 1he urgency provision in
     section 17 of the Act was invoked, there was no inquiry under
     section 5A of the Act and possession was taken on 18.9.1991
G    even before making an award. The appellant contended that
     where possession is taken invoking section 17 of the Act, the
     acquisition would not lapse under section 11 A of the Act even
     if the award was not made within two years from the date of
     final declaration. In support of the said contention, the appellant
H    relied upon the decision of this Court in Satendra Prasad Jain
     LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A. RAMACHANDRA 331
             REDDY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
     v. State of UP. [1993 (4) SCC 369), wherein it was held that         A
~    when section 17(1) of the Act is invoked by reason of urgency
     and the State Government takes possession of the land prior
     to the making of the award under section 11 of the Act and
     thereupon the owner is divested of the title of the land which
     vested in the Government, section 11A would have no                  B
     application. It was also held that ordinarily if the Government
     fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under
-<   section 6 of the Act, the acquisition would lapse, if the land had
     not vested in the Government. But where the land has already
     vested in the Government by taking possession, there is no           c
     provision in the Act by which the lands statutorily vested in the
     Government could revert back to the land owner and therefore
     section 11A was inapplicable. This Court further held that even
     if the 80% estimated compensation required to be paid under
     section 17(3-A) of Act was not paid to the owner, that would
                                                                          D
~    not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the land
     did not vest in the Government.

              9. The appellant contended that as the land vested in the
       ·government by reason of possession being taken by invoking
        section 17 of the Act on 18.9.1991, section 11A of the Act        E
        would be inapplicable and the acquisition did not lapse. It was
        further submitted that as a consequence, the preliminary
--. notification dated 3.1.1990 and final declaration dated
        10.1.1990 continued to operate and consequently, the fresh
        notification dated 9.9.1993 (gazetted on 19.11.1993) followed     F
        by final declaration dated 16.2.1994 became redundant and
        inapplicable. The appellant contends that the High Court was
        therefore not justified in proceeding on the basis that the
        compensation should be fixed with reference to the date of
  --r- publication of the second preliminary notification that is         G
        19.11.1993, instead of determining the market value as on
        3.1.1990.

          10. On a careful consideration, we are of the view that the
     decision in Satayender Prasad Jain will not apply to this case.
                                                                          H
    332      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 1 S.C.R.


A The issue in this case is not whether the acquisition lapsed or
    not. The issue is where the earlier preliminary and final
    notifications are superseded by the subsequent preliminary and
   final notifications and whether the market value should be fixed
   with reference to the first preliminary notification or the second
B _ preliminary notification. Section 17 as amended in Andhra
    Pradesh, no doubt provided that the land would vest absolutely
    in the government even before making the award, on taking
    possession of the land needed for a public purpose. But as the
    Land Acquisition Officer failed to estimate the compensation
c and tender 80% thereof to the land-owners, as required under
    section 17(3A) of the Act, the land-owners approached the
    High Court by filing WP No.14396 of 1991 seeking a direction
    to the appellant to pass the award. As possession had been
    taken as the land had already vested in the government, the
0 land owners_could not and did not challenge the acquisition in
    the said writ petition. Keeping these facts in view, the High Court
    disposed of the said writ petition with a specific direction to
    make an award before 11.2.1992. Admittedly, the award was
    not made and the order of the High Court was not complied
   with. It is also of some relevance to note that under sub-section
E (5) of section 17 of the Act, inserted by a State Amendment in
    Andhra Pradesh, if the Collector does not take possession of
    the land within three months from the date when State
    Government directs under sub-section (4) of section 17 that the
    provisions of section 5A shall not apply, the effect would be that
                                                                          -
F the provisions of section 5A would apply and the period of 30
    days referred to in section 5A shall be reckoned from the date
    of expiration of three months. In these peculiar circumstances,
    the government after considering the facts and circumstances,
   with a view to avoid further challenge, issued a fresh notification
G dated 9.9.1993 (gazetted on 19.11.1993) followed by final
    declaration dated 16.2.1994. The State Government did not
    subsequently cancel/rescind/withdraw the notifications dated
   9.9.1993 and 16.2.1994. The State Government had clearly
   abandoned the earlier notifications dated 3.1.1990 and
H
       LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. A RAMACHANDRA 1333
               REDDY [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
       10.1.1990 by issuing the subsequent notifications dated A
_,.-
       9.9.1993 and 16.2.1994. The appellant cannot therefore
       contend that the second preliminary notification is redundant or
       that first preliminary notification continues to hold good. In the
       circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the
       compensation should be determined with reference to the date B
       of publication of the second preliminary notification, namely
       19.11.1993.

             11. If we examine the quantum of compensation awarded
       by the High Court with reference to the date of gazetting of the
       second preliminary notification, that is 19.11.1993, we find that
                                                                            c
       the compensation award is not excessive and does not call for
       interference. It has been determined with reference to a sale
       transaction dated 12.11.1993, just a few days prior to the
       publication of the second preliminary notification in the gazette
       dated 19.11.1993. The High Court has also made a deduction D
       of 40% in the market value disclosed by the said sale
       transaction.

            12. lri some of the counter affidavits filed in the special
       leave petitions by the claimants, they have alleged that their       E
       special leave petitions (challenging the judgment of the High
       Court and seeking higher compensation) were dismissed as
       barred by time and therefore, they may be permitted to make
       a counter claim for a higher compensation. Such counter-claims
       in counter-affidavits in special leave petitions are impermissible   F
       and not maintainable and cannot be entertained.

              13. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed.

       N.J.                                       Appeals dismissed.
   -