SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION SSP KURNOOL Vs. C SAI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Kurnool, are directed against the Judgment of our learned brother Raghuvir, J., allowing a batch of writ petitions and directing the respondents therein to cause a reference to the civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1 94 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this batch of writ appeals the common question of law, that arises for consideration is whether the respondents herein are entitled to seek a reference beyond a period of two months from the date of the award,

(2.) Srisailam Hydro Electric Power project resulted in submersion of large extent of villages on either side of the river in Kurnool and Mahaboobnagar districts. These lands were notified for acquisition under section 4 (1) of the Act. As a result of submersion, several hundred thousands of persons were uprooted from their villages. Compensation was determined by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition under several awards. Invariably where the notices were issued, very few claimants entered their appearance and participated in the award proceedings. It is common ground that in respect of the lands which form the subject- matter of award No. 24 of 1977 which was made on 27th October, 1977 and other lands which formed the subject-matter of the writ appeals, none of the claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and took part in the award enquiry. The award was, however, made and notices of the award are purported to have been issued under section 12 (2) of the Act. No particular form of notice is prescribed under the Act and the rules made thereunder. In the instant case, a statement was prepared in Telugu language with a heading "Notice under section 12 (2) of the Act". In that notice award No. 24 of 1977 dated 27th October. 1977, was mentioned. It relates to Yerravaram village in Nandikotkur taluk of Kurnool district. A statement in four columns was prepared, first colum giving the extent of the land, second column the total amounts determined, third column mentioning the names of the persons entitled to receive the amount and the fourth column left blank for obtaining the signature of the person concerned. It is also stated therein that the persons named in the statement are declared entitled to receive the amount specified against their names in respect of the land mentioned therein. Towards the end of the statement, there is a note that ''if within one week of the issuance of the notice, the persons concerned do not receive the amount the amount would be deposited under revenue deposits and it would not carry any interest". It is the case of the appellants that this constitutes sufficient notice of the making of the award as contemplated by section 12(2) of the Act. It is contended that in as much as the respondents-claimants have not filed any application s within two months of service of the said notice for making a reference to the Court under proviso (b) to section 18 (2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. It is also further contended that the claimants have received compensation without protest and consequently in view of the second proviso to section 31 (2) of the Act, are not entitled to seek a reference. In the counter-affidavit it was averred that after the receipt of the said notice, the claimants did not ask for a copy of the award.

(3.) Section 12 of the Act reads as follows: