The Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Ellaboina Pasiah & Ors.

Judgment

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) These appeals arise under Section 54 of Land Actions Act, 1984. The L.A.A.S.Nos.237, 291, 311, 354, 358, 365, 367, 399, 404, 411, 414, 416, 418, 460, 463, 615 of 2010 are filed against the common order passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2005 to 26 of 2005 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem on 17.11.2009. The L.A.A.S.Nos.246, 259, 260,265, 300, 304, 305, 309, 312, 313, 357, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366,369, 371, 398, 400, 405, 406, 408, 413, 417,419,420,421, 422, 440, 461, 462, 476, 478 of 2010 are filed against the common order passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.27 of 2005 to 72 of 2005 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem on 17.11.2009. The respondent No.1 in all the appeals are the claimants in the main OPs and the appellant herein is the respondent No.2 in the above said Ops. All the said OPs arise under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for shot, the Act) at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the LAO) in the Award dated 15.5.1989. The respondent No.1/claimants have filed the claim statement before the Reference Court pleading that the lands of the claimants situated at Usirikayalapalli village of Singareni Mandal was acquired for the purpose of depillaring operations at the instance of the applicant. The details of the O.P. number, names of the claimants and the respective extents of the land acquired from them and the compensation awarded to them is as under: O.P.Nos. Name of the Claimant Extent of the land acquired Survey No. 1 of 2005 2 of 2005 3 of 2005 4 of 2005 5 of 2005 Banoth Lalu Yellabonia Poshaiah (wet land) 0.19 gts. 0.20 0.25 Wet 0.02 1.07 0.08 gts.,(Wet) Udugula Narayana Reddiboina Lingaiah W 0.10 W 0.03 KHT 0.10 KHT 0.17 W 0.01 W 0.10 KHT 0.11 KHT 0.12 Reddiboina Thirupathaiah

0.15 KHT 0.14 W 0.13 KHT 2.02 0.11W 0.05KH 0.14W 0.14W 516/5,520/2 516/6,521/1 519/3,521/1 519/5,522/1 Total: 1.38 gts., Land value fixed in the Award in Rupees 10,000/- 10,000 10,000 WET 10,000/- KHT 5,000/- W10,000/- KHT 5,000/- 6 of 2005 Udugual Ialaiah

0.06 Wet 7 of 2005 Udugula Kistaiah 8 of 2005 Reddiboina Venkateswarlu 9 of 2005 10 of 2005 Reddiboina Jaggaiah Reddiboina Veeriah W 0.11 W 0.10 W 0.33

0.04 0.01 Wet 0.05 0.14 KHT 0.17 KHt 0.26 Wet 1.11 Wet 10,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/-

0.21 KHT 1.35 519/6 519/7 Wet 10,000/- 5,000/- KHT 11 of 2005 Reddiboina Venkateswarlu Wet 0.09 KHT 0.06 KHT 0.07 Wet 1.12 1.34 Wet 10,000/- KHT 5,000/- 12 of 2005 Pothuraju Pichamma 0.38 KHT 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 72(p) 548/72(p) 548/72(p) 548/74(p) 5,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 548/74(p) 4,000/- 548/74(p) 4,000/- 498/2.3 512/5(p) 512/5(p) 5,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 13 of 2005 14 of 2005 Pothuraju Pichamma W 1.20 KHT 0.08 W 1.00 KHT 0.07 2.25 0.06 KHT Chinna Ellaboina Nagiah 15 of 2005 Ellaboina Papaiah

0.10 KHT 16 of 2005 Banda Pothaiah

1.36 Dry 17 of 2005 Banda Surriah

1.00 Dry 18 of 2005 Banda Kanakaiah

1.0 Dry 19 of 2005 Banda Atchamma (died) rep. by LR Pothaiah 20 of 2005 Bonda Kotaiah, S/o. late Swamy 21 of 2005 22 of 2005 brother Band (Late Pitchaiah) Kotaiah Banda Kotaiah 23 of 2005 Dasari Ramulu

0.01 0.10 Dry 3.22 3.33 0.26 Dry 0.03 0.34 1.00 Dry

1.00 Dry

0.01 0.07 KHT 0.28 24 of 2005 S. Venkata Narasiah 2.00 Dry 25 of 2005 Tammineni Laxmi

2.00 Dry 26 of 2005 P.Laxminarsu

1.21 Dry 27 of 2005 28 of 2005 Atchamma Banda (died) rep. by LRs B. Pathaiah Banda Pothaiah

1.00 KHT

0.31 KHT 29 of 2005 Banda Kotaiah

0.04 KHT Dry 30 of 2005 Dasari Venkamma

0.04 KHT Dry

0.12 Wet 0.05 KHT 0.17

0.16 Wet 31 of 2005 32 of 2005 33 of 2005 34 of 2005 35 of 2005 36 of 2005 (died) LR Basit Khan rep. Reddiboina Jaggaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Reddiboina Jaggaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Reddiboina Veeraiah Reddiboina Thirupathaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs Reddiboina Lingaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs Kistaiah Udugula Ashobee (died) rep. by LR

0.13 KHT 5,000/-

0.15 KHT 5,000/-

0.01 KHT 0.04 KHT 0.17

0.12 Wet 5,000/- 10,000/- 37 of 2005 Udugula Ilaiah 38 of 2005 39 of 2005 40 of 2005 41 of 2005 Udugula Bhadraiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Udugula Narayana, Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Ellaboina Poshaiah @ Papaiah Reddiboina Venkateswarlu Ashabee (died) rep. by LR 42 of 2005 Kona Ramulu 43 of 2005 Banda Surraiah 44 of 2005 B. Khan (died) rep. by LR Syed Jhani Pasha 45 of 2005 Sankabuddi Venkaiah

0.13 Wet 0.10 KHT 0.23 0.12 Wet 0.02 KHT 0.14 0.21 KHT 0.14 KHT 0.25 0.06 Wet 0.20 Wet 2.02 Dry 2.28 1.17 0.10 0.06 0.10 2.03 0.13 W 0.11 W 0.14 W 0.21 KHT 1.00 Dry

0.03 Wet 0.08 KHT 0.32 KHT 1.10 0.20 Wet 0.05 KHT 0.25 46 of 2005 47 of 2005 48 20050.30 49 of 2005 50 of 2005 51 of 2005 52 of 2005 53 of 2005 54 of 2005 55 of 2005 Reddiboina Mattaiah 1.14 WET 0.01 KHT 0.18 KHT 0.05/1.38 2.04 KHT Yellaboina Pedda Nagaiah Yellaboina Papaiah Yellaboina Nagaiah Beraboina Laxmi Mudu Ramjee Jangili Laxmaiah Moodu Boddu @ Bhadru Jangili Ramulu Pothuraju Pitchamma

0.24 KHT

0.350 KHT 2.06 DRY 2.00 DRY 2.38 DRY

2.00 DRY 1.02 KHT 4.00 DRY 56 of 2005 Pothuraju Pitchamma 57 of 2005 Gumpidi Veeraswamy another, rep. by LR.

1.33 0.05 0.33 0.09 0.03 0.02/3.05 WET 1.00 DRY 525/1,2 526/3(p) 548/41,43 528/4(p) 528/4(p) 532/2(p) 532/2(p) 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 4,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/- 548/70(p) 548/70(p) 548/71(p) 548/71(p) 548/53(p) 5,000/- 5,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 5,000/- 4,000/- 548/53(p) 10,000/-

0.30 KHT 5,000/- 58 of 2005 59 of 2005 Gumpidi Ramachander Gumpidi Venkataiah

0.22 DRY 0.17/0.37 DRY

1.00 DRY 548/53(p) 4,000/- 60 of 2005 61 of 2005 62 of 2005 63 of 2005 64 of 2005 65 of 2005 66 of 2005 67 of 2005 68 of 2005 69 of 2005 70 of 2005 71 of 2005 72 of 2005

0.02 KHT 0.03 0.13 WET 0.04 0.06/0.21 KHT 0.03 KHT 0.34/0.37 wet 0.12 wet 0.11 KHT 2.26 dry Devandla Radhabai Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs Tammisetti Sanjeeva Rao Devandla Dhanalakshmi Vasam Chinnaiah @ Esala Chinnaiah Ippa Nagamma Ippa Radhamma Ippa Ramaiah Ippa Subbaiah Ippa Devaiah Kudum Padma Hanumakonda Nagamma Kethamalla Gopaiah 5.23 dry Reddiboina Mattaiah 1.00 KHT

0.26 dry 1.00 dry 1.00 dry 1.00 dry 0.25 dry 1.00 dry 7.14. dry 548/53(p) 514/4(p) 514(p) 514/4(p) 514/4(p) 548/89(p) 548/89(p) 548/89(p) 548/89(p) 548/89(p) 4,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 10,000/- 5,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- 5,000/- The LAO has fixed the value of the wet land at Rs.10,000/- per acre, Rs.5,000/- per acre for KHT lands and Dry lands at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The LAO passed the award under Award No.4 of 1989 dated 15.5.1989 under L.A. Case No.A2/72/86. The draft notification of land acquired was approved vide G.O.R.T.No.EFES&T of Public Relation Department dated

13.6.1988 and the Drat notification was published on gazette Part-I dated 22.8.1988. The compensation was fixed by LAO was received under protest. But the LAO has not issued 12(2) notice to the claimant or their representatives as required under the Act. According to the claimants, the acquired land is wet land and it has been cultivated as wet land for the last so many decades. The land is KHT as per records of village accounts and it was shown as dry. But in fact the KHT land is a wet land and there is no difference between the other wet land in the award. The KHT and wet lands are one and the same in nature of the land. Both are equivalent in value and used to yield similarly. The LAO has not looked into the potential value of the acquired land, and arbitrately fixed the market value of the land at low rate. The yield of the KHT and wet land is at 35 bags per acre. The claimants used to get two cart loads of fooder, paddy hay which will be useful for live stock of the claimants. The claimants used to get HEMP as second crop after harvesting the paddy. From the wet cultivation of the acquired land the claimants used to get minimum income of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per acre excluding expenses. The claimants used to cultivate the land by himself as such he may not incur heavy expenditure on cultivation of the land. There are alienations in Usirikayalapalli village. One Banoth Krishna alienated the land to Bhukya Haria @ Rs.11,000/- per acre under a registered document No.4 of 1986 dated

17.1.1986 and it was a dry land. In the same survey number, Banoth Krishna alienated land to Islavath Lingya under Registered document No.22/86 @ Rs.10,900/- per acre and it was dry land. In S.No.548/124 Karansingh has alienated dry land extent Acs.1.00 to L. Mansingh @ Rs.15,000/- per acre under a registered document No.2654/88. In another instance one Reddiboina Mattaiah who is also one of the claimant in this award has alienated Acs.1.00 land to Banoth Lalu @ Rs.25,000/- per acre under a registered document No.2303/1988 dated 24.12.1986. The alienation of the lands was between non tribal and tribals. The purchasing power of tribal is less when compared to non-tribal. If the non-tribal claimant has to acquire similar lands in any non tribal area, he has to spend @ Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Now on account of acquisition of land the claimant is deprived of his very source of income. The LAO ought to have fixed for the wet land minimum Rs.30,000/- per acre. The adjoining to Usirikayalapalli village for dolomite exploration the Vizag Steel Plant has acquired lands in the year 1981-82. For the wet cultivated lands the value was fixed at Rs.23,000/- per acre. As the acquisition was in the year 1981, where as the acquisition of claimant’s land is in the year 1989, taking into consideration 10% as increase per year, the LAO ought to have fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre for wet land and at Rs.20,000/- per dry land. The 4(1) Draft notification was approved on 13.6.1988 but the possession of the land was taken on 26.5.1986. The award in this case was made on15.5.1989. The claimant is entitled to 12% additional market value on the market value from the date of draft notification i.e., 13.6.1988 to the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 under Section 23(1) (a) of the Act. Therefore, they sought for fixation of the market value for wet land at Rs.40,000/- per acre, Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry land and sought for consequential benefits. The respondent No.1 who is the LAO has filed the reply statement admitting about the acquisition of the land of the claimants for the purpose of de-pillering operations of Singareni Collieries Company Limited under the Award No.4 of 1989 dated 15.5.1989. The LAO has fixed the market value of the land basing on his enquiry in the locality at Rs.10,000/- per acre for the wet land, Rs.4,000/- for dry land per acre and Rs.1,000/- extra amount relating to the lands for which the bunds are prepared for the purpose of cultivation of paddy. The dry land paddy cultivated lands value fixed at Rs.5,000/-. The LAO has passed award by following the procedure prescribed under the Act. According to him if the claimants raised ground nut crop they will get 25 bags of ground nuts per acre is false. The average income from the dry land is not less than Rs.4,000/- per annum after deducting the expenses are false. The LAO has fixed the compensation as per the prevailing market value on the date of acquisition by making local enquiry. So, the claim of the claimant for fixing the market value of Rs.30,000/- per wet land and Rs.20,000/- for dry land is not at all correct. The Referring Officer has not committed any irregularity in calculating the interest. The LAO granted benefits to the claimants as per the Act whatever available under the provisions of the Act. As such the claims of the claimants are liable to be dismissed. The respondent No.2 who is the appellant herein has filed the reply statement pleading that the claimant has not filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act before the LAO within the stipulated time and as such the very reference made by the Referring Officer dated 5.1.2005 is bad in law and liable to be dismissed on this count itself. According to them, the claimants have not obtained any acknowledgements for the petitions filed by them under Section18 of the Act before the Special Tahsildar of Manuguru at the time of filing of applications through their counsel. The petitions filed under Section18 of the Act referred to the court by the Referring Officer does not bear the signature/initials of the Special Tahsildar, disbanded LA Unit of Manuguru who was said to have been received the petitions. There is no record to show that the petitions of the claimants said to have been filed before the Special Tahsildar was entered in a Register that has to be maintained as per the instructions of the then Commissioner of Land Revenue. The notices under Section

12.2(a) of the Act said to have been served on the claimants do not bear any date and in some cases, such notices were not served by the Special Tahsildar, LA Unit. In the reference letter, LAO did not mention the date on which the petition under Section 18 of the Act was submitted by the claimant to their office which is the crucial date for reckoning the period of limitation and to come to a conclusion as to whether the petition was filed within limitation or not. In the matters that were referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act due to title dispute, though the said OPs were decided in the year 1995, the claimants claimed that they have filed the Section18 petitions on 13.7.1989 itself which is very much prior to the date of decision of the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act. They further pleaded that the LAO has fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet land basing on sale deed dated 21.2.1986 in which land to an extent of Acs.0.20 gts. was registered @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. Similarly, LAO has fixed the market value of dry land @ Rs.4,000/- per acre basing on the sale deed No.983/86 in which land to an extent of Acs.1.20 gunts situated in S.No.548/134 in Usirikayalapalli village was registered @ Rs.4,000/- per acre. For KHT land and the LAO fixed market value @ Rs.5,000/- per acre adding Rs.1,000/- to the value of dry land after inspection of the lands under acquisition and also the sale deed lands considering all the aspects that are required under LA Act and hence the market value fixed by LAO does not warrant any enhancement. Further allegation that the land acquired for Vizag Steel Plant for Dolomite Exploration in adjoining to Usirikayalapalli village in the year 1981-1982 has no comparison to the present case, since the land in this case was acquired in the year 1989 and as such taking value of land paid by the Vizag Steel plant and increasing the value @ 10% for every year is not an approved method of fixing the market value of the land and hence cannot be considered. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the said petitions as barred by limitation and devoid of merits. The Referring Court basing on the memos filed by the claimants in L.A.O.P Nos.2 of 2005 to 26 of 2005 clubbed the said OPs with L.A.O.P No.1 of 2005 and joint enquiry was conducted in L.A.O.P.1 of 2005. Similarly basing on the Memos filed in L.A.O.P.Nos.28 of 2005 to L.A.O.P.No,72 of 2005, clubbed the said Ops with the L.A.O.P.No.27 of 2005 and common enquiry was conducted in L.A.O.P.No.27 of 2005. The respondents have not raised any objection for the same. In L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2005 to 26 of 2005, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent one E. Ravikishore, Superintendent of the office of S.D.C., IPT Railways, Khammam was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.27 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent one N. Dasaradha Ramulu, Junior Estates Officer, was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.28 to B.93 were marked. During his cross-examination, the claimants got marked Exs.A.7 to A.15 which are the certified copies of Form-C applications. In L.A.O.P.Nos.27 of 2005 to 72 of 2005, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, one E. Ravikishore, Superintendent, in the office of S.D.C., IPT & Railways, Khammam, was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.51 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondent, one N. Dasaradha Ramulu, Junior Estates Officer, was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.52 to B.154 were marked. During his cross-examination, the claimants got marked Exs.A.7 to A.15, which are the certified copies of Form-C applications. Basing on the pleadings, the Referring Court has framed the following points for consideration in both batch of OPs:

1. Whether the reference in all these cases were made within the period of limitation?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of market value as prayed for by them together with all statutory benefits? The Referring Court by taking consideration of both oral and documentary evidence placed before it came to the conclusion in both batch of OPs that the applications filed under Section 18 of the Act were field within the period of limitation and accordingly point No.1 was held in favour of the claimants. In Point No.2, the Referring Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.13,000/- per acre for dry land, Rs.15,000/- per acre for KHT land, Rs.25,000/- per acre for wet lands together with additional market value of 12% from the date of draft notification i.e., 16.11.1988 to the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 and 30% solatium on the market value together with interest @ 9% per one year from

26.5.1986 to 25.5.1987 and @ 15% p.a., thereafter on the enhanced market value from the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 till the date of payment of unpaid additional market value and

enhanced market value. The respondents are also directed to pay costs of the claims. Aggrieved by the said common order passed in both batch of OPs, the respondent No.2 therein has filed the present appeals. Since the evidence recorded and documents marked and the issues involved in both the batch of OPs is the same the appeals arising out of the said batch of OPs are being disposed by this following common judgment. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants Sri N. Subba Reddy that the applications filed under Section18 of the Act by the claimants for making reference to the Referring Court were not filed within the period of limitation and no material was placed before the Referring Court to establish that the applications were filed within the period of limitation and the Referring Court has failed to consider that the applications do not bear the initials or date stamp of the office of the LAO and some applications do not bear the date of filing of the applications and the Vakalat filed along with the said claim petitions do not bear the date and the Advocate who has filed Vakalat has not signed on the petitions and as such the reference itself is bad and the same is liable to be set aside. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court basing on Exs.A.2 to A.4 which are the transitions taken place subsequent to taking possession of the land and as such they cannot be relied upon and the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income derived from the acquired land. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the period during which they kept quiet without making any efforts for referring their applications to the Referring Court under Section 18 of the Act i.e., from 15.5.1989 to 18.5.2004/21.5.2004. The learned counsel for the appellant has further pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for interest prior to the date of issuance of draft notification even though the possession was taken prior to the date of issuance of the notification. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimants Sri R. Kameswara Rao, on the other hand, has pleaded that the referring officer has rightly taken into consideration of Exs.B.2 to B.7 applications said to have been filed by the claimants were produced by the respondents themselves before the Referring Court and the burden is on the respondent to establish that the applications were not filed within the period of limitation as all the records will be available with the respondents to establish the same and having not established the same, the referring court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applications are filed within the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants has further pleaded that the enhancement of the compensation was made by the referring court basing on the award passed in O.P.No.170 of 1991 for the lands acquired in the same village and which was confirmed by this Court and enhancement was not based on Exs.A.2 to A.4 produced by the claimants, as such the said enhancement does not warrant any interference by this Court. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is that the delay in making the reference was on the part of the 2nd respondent herein i.e., LAO and as such the claimants cannot be deprived of interest for the delay in referring the matter by the 2nd respondent. The respondents’ counsel further pleaded that the claimants are entitled for interest for the pre-notification period from the date of taking possession of the land and under Section 34 of the Act. From the above said pleas of the respective counsels, the points that arise for considerations are:

1. Whether the application under Section 18 of the Act filed by the claimants are barred by limitation?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for the compensation as enhanced by the Referring Court?

3. Whether the claimants are not entitled to interest from 1989 to 2004 as pleaded by the counsel for the appellant?

4. Whether the claimants are entitled for the interest prior to the date of notification? Point No.1: The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the applications said to have been filed by the claimants do bear the initials of the LAO and there is no stamp of the office showing the receipt of the said applications and some of the applications do not bear the date of filing of the applications and the counsel who have filed the applications along with the Vakalat has not signed on the applications and the claimants have kept quiet for more than 5 years i.e., up to 18.10.2004 without pursuing the matter and therefore, the circumstances clearly establish that the applications under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within the period of limitation, as such the claims made by the claimants are barred by limitation and they are not entitled for any relief. The learned counsel for the appellant also pleaded that all the claimants were not examined to establish that they have made the application within the period of limitation and in the order of reference, the date of filing of the application was kept blank and as such the applications filed under section18 of the Act are brought up subsequently for the purpose of reference as such they are barred by limitation. With regard to the non-examination of the claimants before the referring court, the learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded that since all the OPs are clubbed together and common evidence was recorded and as such they have examined two claimants to establish the fact of filing of their applications and there is no necessity to examine all the claimants before the Referring Court. In support of their contention, he relied upon a decision rendered in Mangat Ram Tanwar and another v. Union of India[1] wherein the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court gave a direction to the State Governments to ensure the disposal of applications for reference to the court when moved before the Land Acquisition Collector though the statue has not given a period for disposing of such applications, these application should be disposed of within three months of being made and the outer limit should not exceed six months. The Apex Court has further observed that “the references under Section 18 of the Act should be treated as a class by themselves entitled to priority attention. If care and attention are devoted at the appropriate time, these cases can be easily disposed of by clubbing them group wise and recording evidence after taking the consent of counsel for the parties. Most of the acquisitions these days relate to large patches of land and ordinarily they are covered under one notification. Cases which are covered by a common notification should be clubbed together for which a statutory foundation is available in the Amending Act of 1984 in extending the benefit of higher compensation to all lands covered by a common notification even if dispute is not raised. If that is done the total number of cases where evidence would be necessary is likely to be reduced and better attention can perhaps be given.” Therefore, in view of the above said decision, all the cases pertains to one notification can be clubbed together and disposed off by recording and common evidence in all the cases. In the present case also all the cases arises out of the same notification and the common award passed by the LAO. Therefore, there is no need to examine all the claimants before the referring court to establish their contentions. More over as observed above in the above said decision, the benefit of higher compensation to all the lands covered by the common notification can be given even if dispute is not raised. Therefore, even if a claimant has not made any application under Section 18 of the Act for reference for enhancing the compensation and if the compensation for the lands acquired by the common notification, is enhanced the said person is also entitled for enhanced compensation. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is not necessary to examine all the claimants before the referring court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that non-examination of the claimants is fatal to the case of the claimants cannot be accepted. Now it has to be considered whether the material placed before the referring court establishes that the applications filed under Section 18 of the Act are barred by limitation as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant. Before the Reference Court, the claimants in O.P.No.1 of 2005 was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated that they have received the enhanced compensation paid by the LAO under protest and the LAO has not issued any notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act to the claimants or to their representatives as required under the Act and he has not stated any thing about making of the applications under Section 18 of the Act in his chief-examination, but marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. In the cross-examination by the respondent No.2 i.e., appellant herein he has stated that his advocate did not accompany him when he received the compensation. Subsequently he engaged advocate by name B. Ramachandraiah. At the time of receiving the compensation, they have filed the protest petition with LAO but no acknowledgement was given to his application. He do not have the copy of the protest petition. He received the compensation about 20 years ago. Himself and other land losers gave a joint application to the concerned authorities for making reference to the civil court. They have not received any reply on that application. The LAO office was shifted from Karepally to another place. He went to LAO office at Khammam. About 20 years ago, he gave an application before the LAO, Khammam for referring his case to civil court. He also further stated that he made a protest application after 5 or 6 months from the date of acquisition. He denied that about 4 years ago, his advocate has filed applications for making reference to the civil court. The claimant in O.P.No.2 of 2005 was examined as P.W.2. He also stated that the compensation fixed by the LAO was received under protest and the LAO has not issued any notice under section 12(2) of the Act, the reference petitions initially filed by them were not taken up by the LAO i.e., the Special Tahasildar, Land Acqusition, Manugur, as such they have filed reminder before the Spl. Dy. Collector, IPT Railways, Khammam intimating all the details in the month of May, 2004. In the cross-examination by Respondent No.2 he admitted that he has not filed protest application before LAO at Khammam. He denied that he did not engage any advocate at Khammam. He also denied that they have not filed any applications seeking reference under section 18 of the Act within the period of limitation and managing the concerned authority got the matter referred to the court. On behalf of the LAO, the Superintendent Office, SDC (LA) ITP & Railways, Khammam was examined as R.W.1 and he has stated in his chief-examination that that erstwhile LAO office of Special Thasildar, Munugur was disbanded in the year 1994 and subsequently files were transferred to the office of Special Deputy Collector (LA) IPT & Railways, Khammam. In the year 2005, the advocate for the claimants approached the respondent stating that his petition filed under Section 18 of the Act before the erstwhile Land Acquisition Officer was pending for reference to the civil court and requested for referring the same to the civil court. Along with the said application he did not file any acknowledgement from the erstwhile LAO. Basing on the legal opinion, the then LAO has referred the said petition to the court. He further stated that the applications said to have been filed before the erstwhile LAO were not date stamped, evidencing the receipt of the said application on a specified date in order to ascertain as to whether it was filed within the limitation or not. The advocate did not sign and put any date on the said application. Similarly on some of the applications, the advocate did not sign and did not put any date. One of the claimants has affixed his thumb impression on the application on 10.5.2004 wherein he has signed on Vakalat and the application filed under section 18 of the Act and marked Exs.B.1 to B.27. In the cross-examination, by the 2nd respondent he has stated that in the year 1996, the Special Deputy Collector, Khamma considered all the applications under Section18 of the Act and gave finding that they are filed beyond period of limitation and accordingly closed the applications and there is no court order to reopen the said applications and immediately he denied the suggestions that the Special Deputy Collector, Khammam has passed the orders closing the application of the claimants and stated that the LAO, Khammam has referred all the matter to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In the cross-examination on behalf of the claimants, he has admitted that most of the claimants in these cases have received the compensation under protest and further admitted that the claimants have made their applications under Section 18 of the Act within the period of limitation. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, Junior Estate Officer, Yellandu was examined as R.W.2 and he has stated that the erstwhile LA Office of Special Tahsildar (LA), Manuguru was disbanded in the year 1994 and the files were transferred to the office of Spl. Deputy Collector (LA) IPT and Railways, Khammam for administrative purpose. The claimants have filed a petition dated 10.5.2004 in the office of the Spl. Deputy Collector (LA) IPT and Railways, Khammam on 17.5.2004 alleging that he filed petition under Section 18 of the Act through his advocate on 26.6.1989 before the erstwhile LAO and it was pending for reference to civil court and requested to refer the same to the civil court. The claimant maintained silence without approaching any authority or competent court. He has not filed any documentary evidence about his follow up with the concerned authorities from time to time as alleged. He further stated that the certified copy of the application dated 10.5.2004 filed by the claimant, CC of Vakalat filed by Sri B. Ramachandraiah, Advocate, Kothagudem and CC of form of reference made by the Spl. Dy. Collector, IPT & Railways, Khammam to this court are filed by the 2nd respondent and they were marked as Exs.B.28 to B.93. In the cross-examination on behalf of the LAO, he denied that all the reference petitions were filed within limitation period and therefore the LAO has referred them to this court and that they made false plea that those applications were not within the period of limitation. In the cross-examination on behalf of the claimants he stated that the Exs.A.7 to A.15 are the certified copies of Form-C application and he denied that all the claimants have filed the protest petitions within the period of limitation. He expressed his ignorance that most of the claimants belongs to ‘Koya’ community and they are illiterates. He further admitted that it is the duty of the LAO to put the signature on the reference applications received by him and Form-C will be sent to their company and he could not say whether the same are available in their company. They have not produced the inward register maintained in the office of the LAO. He do not know whether the LAO has issued notice to the claimants intimating that their applications are beyond the period of limitation and were not in order. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is evident that according to the claimants they have received the compensation under protest and submitted the applications under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the civil court for enhancement of the compensation and the LAO, Manuguru has not taken any action as such the claimants made the applications to the Special Deputy Collector, Khammam for making the reference to the civil court. Exs.B.2 to B.27 said to be the applications made by the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that there is no evidence produced by the claimants to establish that the said applications were filed before L.A.O, Manuguru on the said date mentioned therein and he further pleaded that the question of filing of the applications on

15.5.1989 does not arise as the award itself was passed on that day. According to him all the said applications are brought up subsequently for making the reference. R.W.1 admitted in his cross-examining that they did not intimate in writing to the claimants that their applications were not filed within the period of limitation and they were not filed in proper proforma. According to him after obtaining the legal opinion of the Assistant Government Pleader, all the applications were referred to the civil court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said applications do not bear the signature or initial of the Spl. Tahasildar, Munugur and some of the applications do not bear the date on which the applications were filed and in some of applications, Vakalat filed without having any signatures of the advocated or the date of filing. The referring court has observed that since the applications Exs.B.2 to B.27 were produced from the office of LAO itself shows that they were filed before the LAO, Munugur and inward register has to be maintained by the Spl. Tahasildar, Munugur and in the said register, they have to enter all the applications received in their office but no such register was produced on behalf of the LAO and the claimants cannot produce any such evidence to establish the factum of maintaining any register in the LAO office. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically stated in their chief examination that they have made the applications at the time of receiving the compensation but LAO has not issued any acknowledge for their applications. Admittedly there is no initial or date seal of the said Tahasildar on the applications Exs.B.2 to B.27. As admitted by R.W.2 it is the duty of the Special Tahasildar, Manugur to put up the initial and date on the application received by him. For the fault of the then Spl. Tahasildar, Munugur, the claimants cannot be blamed. More over according to R.W.2 in the year 1996, the then Spl. Dy. Collector, Khammam considered all the applications filed under Section18 of the Act by the claimants and gave a finding that they have filed the applications beyond the period of limitation and accordingly closed the application. Even though as R.W.1 has admitted the same at one stage and later he denied the same and stated that as the applications are pending and the reference was made to the civil court by obtaining legal opinion from the Assistant Government pleader. Even if the said contention of the 2nd respondent is accepted, it establishes that in the year 1996, the applications filed under section 18 of the Act are pending. The 2nd respondent has not produced any order passed by the Spl. Dy. Collector, Khammam rejecting the applications stating that the said applications are barred by limitation and the signatures of the counsel is not esential. The contention of the appellant’s counsel that, the counsel has not signed on some of the applications does not hold good as the claimants have signed on the applications. The contention of the appellant’s counsel that Exs.B.2 to B.27 are the applications under Section 18 of the Act were filed on the date of passing of the award itself is not correct. In the appendix of evidence attached to the impugned order, the said Ex.B.2 to B.27 are shown as dated 15.5.1989 but on verification of the said applications, it is found that the date 15.5.1989 as mentioned in the top of the application is the date of Award No.4 of 1989, but not the date of the said application and the date of application has not mentioned in the bottom as 26.6.1989. R.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that most of the claimant in these cases have received the compensation under protest. He also admitted that claimants have made the protest applications under Section 18 of the Act within a period of limitation. More over no intimation as required under Section 12(2) of the Act was given to the claimants by the LAO, Munugur. Even if such intimation was given the same was not produced by the 2nd respondent as R.W.2 has expressed his ignorance about issuance of such notices to the claimants by the Spl Dy. Tahasildar, Munugur. Even if the claimants have not filed any applications under Section 18 of the Act within time when they have received the compensation under protest, itself shows that they have not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the LAO and it is the duty of the LAO to refer the matter to civil court. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon an decision of this Court in CRP No.1412 of 2006 passed on 26.11.2007 filed by the appellant wherein it was observed that the claimants are not entitled for interest during the period of delay in referring the matter to the civil court after receiving the compensation amount. Wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has observed that the receipt of the amount under protest is treated as sine qua non to s eek reference under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, even if the compensation is received under protest by the claimants itself shows that the claimants have sought for referring the matter to civil court under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant’s counsel also pleaded that in the reference order passed by the Spl. Dy. Collector, the date of application was kept blank and as such the application filed under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within the period of limitation. The reference orders are marked as Exs.B.30, 33, 36,39, 41, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 89, 91 and 93 and on perusal of the said reference orders show that the date of filing of the application was kept blank. It is the duty of the referring officer to mention the date of filing of the application by the claimant in the said order and having not mentioned the same by referring officer, it cannot be presumed that the protest applications are not filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, from the above evidence, it cannot be said that the applications were filed under Section 18 of the Act by the claimants are beyond the period of limitation. There was inordinate delay on the part of the referring officer in referring the applications filed by the claimants to the civil court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: The L.A.O has awarded the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet lands, Rs.5,000/- per acre for KHT lands and Rs.4,000/- per acre for dry land and reference court enhanced the same to Rs.25,000/- per ace for wet land, Rs.15,000/- per acre for KHT land and Rs.13,000/- per acre for dry land. Even if the claimants have produced Exs.A.1 to A.4 sale deeds dated 7.5.1984, 27.4.1987, 8.7.1987, 29.8.1987. the referring court has not relied upon the said documents for enhancing the compensation. The claimants also produced Exs.A.5 and A.6 which are the certified copies of the Judgment and decree in O.P.No.170 of 1991 respectively. As per the documents, the market value for the dry land was fixed at Rs.8,000/- by the reference court in respect of acquisition of 32 gts., in S.No.548/5 of Usirikayalapalli village. The said acquisition was made in the year 1983 for the purpose of depillaring and the award was passed on 16.7.1986 fixing the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The referring court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,000/- per acre for dry land and the same was confirmed by this Court. Therefore, the referring court has taken into consideration of the valuation fixed in O.P.No.170 of 1991 which was confirmed by this Court and as the said acquisition was made in the year 1983 and the present acquisition was made in the year 1988 and as there was gap of 5 years in acquisition of the lands covered in the said OP, enhanced market value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per acre per year and thereby fixed the compensation at Rs.13,000/- per acre for dry land. Even though the referring court i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem has not given any reasons for enhancing the market value for KHT land at Rs.15,000/- per acre, Rs.25,000/- per acre for wet land, since the compensation for the dry land as per the orders passed in O.P.No.170 of 1991 as confirmed by this Court was enhanced the from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.13,000/- per acre which is more than three times than the market value fixed by the LAO, he has proportionately enhanced the market value for the KHT land by three times and enhanced for wet land by 2 and ½ times. Thus, the enhancement made by the referring court i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem is in accordance with the market value of the dry land, KHT land and wet land as per the orders in LAOP No.170 of 1991 which was confirmed by this Court. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation as enhanced by the referring court. Accordingly, the point No.2 is held. Point No.3: The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for the interest from the date of making the application i.e., from the year 1989 to 2004 since they have not pursued the matter or taken any steps for referring the matter to civil court for five years. The claimants’ counsel has pleaded that it is the duty of the LAO to refer the matter to the civil court and when he failed to refer the same to the civil court within the time, the claimants cannot be deprived of interest for the said period. In that regard, the appellant’s counsel has relied upon unreported judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.1412 of 2006 passed by the single Judge of this Court on 26.11.2007. The petitioner therein is also Singareni Collieries Company Limited and they filed the said revision questioning the order passed by the reference court on the application filed by them question the reference on the ground that the said applications under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within the period of limitation. In the above said decision, reference was made under Section 30 of the Act to the civil court and the applications were ordered on 22.11.1988 and the compensation was already deposited in the court and the 1st respondent has field I.A.No.918 of 1988 with a prayer to permit him to take his portion of the compensation. The IA was allowed on

19.12.1988 and the amount was received by the first respondent on 22.12.1988 under protest. Thereafter the 1st respondent has made an application on21.1.1989 before the 2nd respondent seeking reference under Section18 of the Act. It was only on 21.1.2000 that he made a further application before the 2nd respondent. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Civil court under Section 18 of the Act and it was taken up as O.P.No.42 of 2001. The revision petitioner has field the application questioning the said order of reference. The referring court has rejected the application on the ground the applications filed under Section 18 of the Act were within the period of limitation and against which they preferred the said revision before this Court. In the said revision, the single Judge of this Court has “observed that the cause of action for seeking reference under section18 of the Act would arise only on receipt of the compensation that too under protest. Receipt of the amount under protest is treated as a sine qua non to seek reference under section 18 of the Act. It is difficult to imagine that reference can be sought, without receiving the amount at all. The period of two months, for seeking reference under Section 18 must be calculated from the date on which the amount of compensation was received under protest. In the present case, the applications were presented within two months from the date of receipt of the amount i.e., 22.12.1988. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner, in this regard, cannot be sustained in law. The learned Judge of this court also observed that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest of different categories for about a decade during which the first respondent remained indifferent and inactive. Even if the delay on his part in pursuing the remedy cannot defeat his right, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay interest for the said period. The first respondent cannot derive benefit of his own lapses.” Thus, in the above said decision for indifferent and inactive attitude on the part of the claimants, held that the claimants are not entitled for the interest from 1.1.1992 to

21.9.2000. In the present case, as already observed above, the delay in making the reference was on the part of the referring officer and not on the part of the claimants. Therefore, the said decision of the learned single Judge of this Court is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimants are not entitled for the interest from 1989 to 2004 cannot be accepted. Accordingly the point is answered. Point No.4: The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for interest for pre-notification period even though possession was taken period to 4(1) notification and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision rendered in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. Vs. DDA and others[2] wherein 3 Judges of Bench of the Apex Court has considered about the entitlement of the interest for the period from the date of taking possession till date of Section 4(1) notification and held that “such compensation” means compensation determined in accordance with other provisions of the Act and includes the market value, the statutory sum and the solatim. “So taking possession” denotes taking possession in accordance with S.16 of S.17. Hence, since possession taken prior to issuance of notification under S.4(1) is dehors the Act held the claimant is not entitled to any interest for such period.” In the above said decision, the matter came up before the larger Bench consisting of 3 Judges in view of the earlier conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Shree Vijay Cotton & Mills Limited v. State of Gujarat[3] and Union of India v. Budh Singh.[4] The larger Bench has examined the issue whether in a case where possession is taken before issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimant is entitled to interest for such anterior period in accordance with Section 34 of the Act and held that while the words “so taking possession” mean taking possession in accordance with Section 16 and 17 of the Act. The stage for taking possession under the aforesaid provisions would be reached only after publication of the notification under Sections 4(1) and 9(1) of the Act and if the possession was taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, it would not be in accordance with Sections 16 and 17 of the Act and will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purpose of the Act. For the parity of reasons, the words “from the date on which he took possession of the land” occurring in Section 28 of the Act would also mean lawful taking of possession in accordance with Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. The words “so taking possession” can under no circumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has been done prior to publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which is dehors the provisions of the Act and thereby held that where possession is taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, interest on the compensation amount cannot be awarded under Section 34 of the Act with effect from the date of taking possession. Therefore, in view of the above said decision as in the present case also, the possession was taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimants are not entitled for interest prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the point is held. In the result, all the appeals are allowed only to the extent of granting of interest prior to issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the rest of the orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in batch of L.A.O.P Nos.1 of 2005 to 26 of 2005 and L.A.O.P.Nos.27 of 2005 to 72 of 2005 respectively dated

17.11.2009 are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date: 11.03.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S Nos.237, 246, 259, 260, 265, 291, 300, 304, 305, 309, 311, 312, 313, 354, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 371, 398, 399, 400, 404, 405, 406, 408, 411, 413, 414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 440, 460, 461, 462, 463, 476, 478 and 615 of 2010 Date: 11.03.2011 Gk.