VADLAMUDI ANNAPURNAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-31
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 23,1992

VADLAMUDI ANNAPURNAMMA THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY TGEAT.SETTIPALLI APPAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Subbashan Reddy, J. - (1.)This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 5-2-1988 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14010 of 1986 rejecting the plea of the appellant herein to quash the notification issued acquiring Acs. 3-3 guntas of land of the petitioner in Survey No. 87, Bowenpally village. These are some facts.The judgment of the learned single Judge is based on an order passed earlier dated 19-10-1984 in Writ Petition No. 12888 of 1983 wherein the prayer was to direct the Land Acquisition Officer te pass the award and the said prayer was granted. Having obtained the said order, now the appellant had turned back and filed the instant writ petition, now under appeal, questioning the acquisition proceedings. The learned Judge has held that the writ petition under appeal is hit by constructive resjudicata and we are in entire agreement with the said finding of the learned Judge that constructive resjudtcata operates in this matter and that the appellant was barred from invoking the writ proceedings again after obtaining an order on 19-10-1984 to pas* the award by waiving her rights to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is needless to mention that the rights under a statute can always be waived by a party and here, in the case on hand, where the party bad waived her right to challenge the acquisition and was only satisfied with the expeditious passing of the award, which relief was, in fact, granted by this Court and pursuant to which the award was passed oa 10-7-1986 and it is stated that section 12 (2) notice was served and within the prescribed time of two months from the date of its service petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., third respondent herein. Shri J. V. Suryanarayana, the learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the order of the learned single Judge non-suiting the appellant on the ground of constructive res judicata is unsustainable as the amended provisions contained under Central Act No. LXVIII of 1984 amending the Land Acquisition Act were not in force when Writ Petition No. 12888 of 1983 was filed and as such the principle underlying constructive res judicata cannot operate. As the said writ petition was disposed of on 19-10-1984, i.e., about three months after the passing of the Amendment Act LXVIII of 1984, the contention of Shri J. V. Suryanarayana that the writ petition is not hit by constructive res judicata is not acceptable. The conclusion ef ours, which is irresistible, is that the writ petition under appeal is hit by principles of constructive resjudicata and it is not maintainable and we affirm the order of the learned single Judge in that regard.
(2.)However, in order to save further time delay, even , though the issue relating to the reference of the matterunder Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not a cause or lis pending before this Court, as they are ancillary proceedings pursuant to, the passing of the award on 10-7-86 and as the award is confirmed by this Court in view of sustaining the Iand acquisition proceedings, we make an indulgence by directing the third respondent herein to make a reference to the civil court pursuant to the appellants application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that, on reference, the said matter will be decided on its own merits having regard to the proof with regard to the market value prevalent on the date of the, notification under section 4 (1), i.'e, 20-9-1979, together with additional compensation at 12% per annum under section 23 (1 A) of the Land Acquisition Act for the period from 20-9-1979 till 24-8-1981 when the possession was taken over and 30% solatium on the market value to determined together with 9% interest for the period from 24-8-1981" till 23-8-1982 and at the rate of l5% per annum from 24-8-1982 till payment.
(3.)Appeal disposed of of-?, accordingly. No order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 300/-.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.