Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Ajjam Linganna And O... v. Land Acquisition Off...

Supreme Court Of India

Nov 28, 2000

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Special leave was granted to hear a batch of civil appeals arising from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 10-3-1999 in CRPs Nos. 2279, 2280, 2282 of 1995 and CRP No. 4022 of 1996. The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision that denied them a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The High Court held, inter alia, that a reference court is not entitled to amend a reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act into a reference under Section 18. After the land acquisition award was passed on 16-1-1976, only one appellant, Ajjam Linganna, filed an application on 14-9-1993 before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) seeking a reference under Section 18. At that time, a reference under Sections 30 and 31 was already pending before the civil court. The LAO did not act on Ajjam Linganna’s Section 18 request.

Thereafter, Ajjam Linganna applied to the court seeking a Section 18 reference and amendment of the existing Sections 30 and 31 reference; the reference court allowed this on 16-12-1993. Subsequently, other appellants applied directly to the reference court on 10-12-1993, obtained orders of impleadment on 25-1-1994, and sought enhancement of compensation.

As to Ajjam Linganna’s situation, it was recorded that he stated he had gone to Bombay during the relevant period when notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on claimants, and the judgment noted there was no positive evidence showing that he was served that notice.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a reference court can amend a pending reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to also operate as a reference under Section 18.
Whether claimants who did not first approach the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 can directly seek impleadment before the reference court and pursue enhancement of compensation.
How to resolve, on the facts presented, the claim of Ajjam Linganna in light of the absence of positive evidence of service of notice under Section 12(2) and his prior application to the Land Acquisition Officer.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court distinguished between the position of Ajjam Linganna and that of the other appellants:

For appellants other than Ajjam Linganna, the Court held it was not open to them to apply directly to the reference court for impleadment and to seek enhancement under Section 18. They had not approached the Land Acquisition Officer for a Section 18 reference, and therefore the reference court could not entertain their enhancement claims merely through impleadment.
As to Ajjam Linganna, the Court noted he had at least filed an application dated 14-9-1993 before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking a Section 18 reference. The record also reflected that there was no positive evidence showing service of notice on him under Section 12(2), consistent with his statement that he was in Bombay during the relevant period.
To avoid further litigation and considering these facts, the Court determined that the civil court’s award relating to the 2 guntas of land in which Ajjam Linganna was interested should be treated as final, and the High Court’s modification in respect of his claim should be set aside.

Consequently, the appeals by the other appellants failed because their route—direct approach to the reference court without first seeking a Section 18 reference from the Land Acquisition Officer—was impermissible. In contrast, Ajjam Linganna received relief based on his prior application to the LAO and the absence of proof of service under Section 12(2).

Holding and Implications

Holding: Special leave was granted. The appeal of Ajjam Linganna was allowed. The award of the civil court fixing compensation at Rs 50 per square yard for the 2 guntas pertaining to Ajjam Linganna was made final, and the High Court’s modification to that extent was set aside. The appeal and the civil revision petition filed by the Land Acquisition Officer before the High Court, insofar as they related to Ajjam Linganna, stood dismissed. All other appeals in this batch were DISMISSED. There was NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.

Implications: The decision confirms that claimants seeking enhancement under Section 18 must first approach the Land Acquisition Officer; direct applications to the reference court for impleadment and enhancement are not permissible. As to Ajjam Linganna, the civil court’s award attained finality due to the specific factual circumstances noted by the Court. The opinion focuses on the parties’ rights in this case and does not articulate broader doctrinal changes beyond the procedural requirement for Section 18 references.

Show all summary ...

Order

1. Special leave granted.

2. These are the appeals by the appellants questioning the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 10-3-1999 in CRPs Nos. 2279, 2280, 2282 of 1995 and CRP No. 4022 of 1996. In these appeals there are 11 appellants in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15481 of 1999, one appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15483 of 1999 and three appellants in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15484 of 1999, seven appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15485 of 1999. All these appellants contended that the judgment of the High Court not allowing them to have a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is liable to be set aside.

3. The High Court came to the conclusion inter alia that the reference court is not entitled to amend a reference under Sections 30 and 31 into a reference also under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court had given other findings against the appellants but it is not necessary for the purpose of these appeals to refer to them. Suffice it to say that after the award was passed on 16-1-1976 the first appellant Ajjam Linganna in SLP (C) No. 15481 of 1999 was the only person who filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking a reference under Section 18. By that date it appears that a reference under Sections 30 and 31 was pending before the civil court. The Land Acquisition Officer did not take any action upon an application filed by Ajjam Linganna seeking a reference under Section 18. Thereafter, the said claimant filed an application in the court seeking reference under Section 18 and for amendment of the existing reference under Sections 30 and 31. This was allowed by the reference court on 16-12-1993. Subsequently, other appellants in these appeals had also made applications to the reference court on 10-12-1993 and obtained orders of impleadment on 25-1-1994 and proceeded to seek enhancement of compensation.

4. In our view, it was not open to the appellants (other than Ajjam Linganna) to have applied directly to the reference court for impleadment and to seek enhancement under Section 18 for compensation. The only person for whom some consideration can be shown is Ajjam Linganna who had at least filed an application on 14-9-1993 before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference.

5. In the above facts and circumstances, these appeals preferred by the various appellants except Ajjam Linganna are liable to be set aside inasmuch as it was not open to the reference court to implead the said appellants in the reference court without their having approached the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference earlier.

6. This leaves the question of Ajjam Linganna alone, in this batch of appeals for consideration. As stated above, he had mentioned in his application filed on 14-9-1993 that he had gone to Bombay during the relevant period when notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the claimants. The result was that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2). The judgment in appeal itself also mentioned that no positive evidence was available to show that the said Ajjam Linganna was served that notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. So far as he is concerned, instead of allowing further litigation, we would think that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case abovementioned, the award passed by the civil court insofar as 2 guntas of land in which he was interested, should be treated as final and the order of the High Court modifying the same should be set aside.

8. In other words, so far as Ajjam Linganna is concerned, the award passed by the civil court at Rs 50 per sq yard will be treated as final and the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the High Court insofar as Ajjam Linganna is concerned will be deemed to have been set aside. The appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the High Court will stand dismissed so far as Ajjam Linganna is concerned. To the same extent the CRP filed by the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as Ajjam Linganna is concerned will stand dismissed. Subject to the above modifications the appeals are dismissed. The appeal of Ajjam Linganna is allowed and others are dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.