CLASS IV EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. TANUBODDI VENKATAPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Is the provision mandatory and whether non-compliance or imperfect compliance with it renders the subsequent proceedings invalid and the award void? These are the questions that come to the fore prominently in this appeal.

(2.) Before we proceed to consider the precedents and the contentions rested thereon, it would be relevant to notice the material facts which are mostly undisputed. The suit schedule land is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4. The first Plaintiff, the 3rd defendant, the husband of the 4th defendant, Achireddy and the second plaintiff's father-in-law, Peri Reddy are all brothers. They are the sons of VenKata Reddy and have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in their own right. The first defendant-Goverment started acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to acquire the land for the benefit of the second defendant-Class IV Employees House Building Society, Guntur. The award, Ex. B-9, was passed on 27-12-1973 under section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Guntur, in favour of the Deity Annapurna Devi Varu of Kasi. The plaintiffs and defendents 3 and 4 submit that they have received only notices under sections 4 and 5A of the Act at the initial stages and that no notices of the subsequent proceedings under section 9 of the Act were issued or served upon them. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs had questioned the acquisition proceedings in this High Court by way of a writ in writ petition No. 1982 of 1972, but the same was dismissed, that the defendants 1 and 2 were aware of the possession and enjoyment of the land by plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 and still notices were wilfully omitted to be served on any of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 in breach of the mandatory requirement of Section 9 (3) of the Act. Therefore, tha plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the award passed, Ex. B-9 was void and was not binding on them and for recovery of possession or in the alternative for compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant mainly contending that the plaintiffs or the defendants 3 and 4 had nothing to do with the suit property, that the suit langs are Inam langs ana that the Settlement Officer under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act had granted a patta to Annapurnadevi varu of Kasi under the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryowari Act. It was also stated that public notice of eviction was issued under section 9(1) of the Act. It was, however, admitted that it was known to the first defendant that the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 were the occupiers of the land, but no notice was given to the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 as required under Sec. 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The second defendant pleaded that the society had paid the entire amount of compensation payable under the Award, and that the suit property belonged to the Deity Annapurna Devi Varu of Kasi and plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 had no interest in the suit property. The third defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 5 to 7 were brought on record as his legal heirs. The 8th defendant who was added subsequently in the suit also deniad the title of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 to the suit land and contended that the 8th defendant alone was the owner of the suit land and had absolute rights in the property and therefore, entitled to the entire compensation amount.