State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Prasad

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5471 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.2591/2024)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

P. PRASAD & ORS. RESPONDENTS

Ashwani Kumar

12:21:57 IST Reason:

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities have instituted this appeal against the judgment dated 13.10.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, whereby Intra-Court Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in terms whereof acquisition proceedings, including the General Award No.01/2021 dated 30.09.2021 pertaining to the land of the respondents, has been quashed.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 04.12.2017 under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the "2013 Act") proposing to acquire land measuring 36.42 acres. The land owners jointly filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition. Three of them, however, later on withdrew the proceedings qua their respective lands and accepted the compensation. The respondents herein contested the legality of the acquisition and their writ petition was allowed by a Digitally signed by Date: 2024.05.04 Signature Not Verified

learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 13.02.2023, thereby quashing the entire acquisition proceedings, though with liberty to the appellants to initiate fresh acquisition process.

4. It may be mentioned here that the subject land was acquired for the public purpose of constructing an additional Summer Storage Tank for South-Central Railways at Guntakal. The notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act was issued on 04.12.2017, followed by declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act on 28.08.2019. The award was eventually passed on 30.09.2021. As noticed earlier, meanwhile, the acquisition process was challenged before the High Court and consequently the learned Single Judge quashed the entire execution proceedings, including the award.

5. The appellant-State filed an Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court.

6. In the Intra-Court Appeal, a new plea was raised on behalf of the land owners that since the land was acquired for the Railways, the 'appropriate Government', as defined under Section 3(e) of the 2013 Act, would be the Government of India and consequently, the notifications were also required to be published in the Gazette of India. The aforesaid contention has found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court and after holding that the South-Central Railways is a part of the Indian Railways, which being part of the Union of India, the 'appropriate Government' would be the Central

Government. The High Court has further observed that the notifications are required to be published in the Gazette of India. Admittedly, the notifications in this case were published in the District Gazette of Kurnool. Therefore, the High Court has held that the procedure resorted to is vitiated in law. The appeal has, accordingly, been dismissed.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the acquisition process on grounds other than those assigned by the Division Bench.

8. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant-State, sought and was granted time to place on record the relevant documents in support of his contention that the acquisition was made on the request of the Authorities of Union of India and as such the procedure followed in the instant case is duly protected under Section 3(e) Clause (v) of the 2013 Act.

9. In this regard, I.A. No.100298/2024 has been moved along with an affidavit in support of the prayer made therein. The documents appended with the application include a communication dated 06.01.2017, whereby South-Central Railways requested the District Collector, Kurnool to acquire 39.49 acres land (tentative land) for the provision of an additional summer storage tank with requisite pumping facilities nearby Guntakal West Station. The South-Central Railways thereafter informed the District Collector to apprise regarding the cost of

acquisition so that such amount could be deposited. The District Collector, Kurnool vide memo dated 20.02.2017 requested the Railways to deposit the tentative cost of Rs.1.49 crores. The Railways then deposited a sum of Rs.1,85,24,684/- vide memo dated 09.12.2020. The South-Central Railways, after deposit of the aforesaid amount, requested the District Collector on 14.02.2022 to handover possession of the acquired land. The Tehsildar, Chippagiri Mandal thereafter handed over the possession on 28.03.2022.

10. From the correspondence between the District Collector, Kurnool and the South-Central Railways Authorities, there is no reason to doubt that the subject land was acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for and on behalf of the Railways.

11. The question that arises for consideration is that where the acquisition process was initiated by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Collector, for the land required for the Railways and for which the cost of compensation has been received from Union of India, who is the 'appropriate Government' within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the 2013 Act? In this regard, Section 3(e) of the 2013 Act, which defines 'appropriate Government' reads as follows:

"(e) "appropriate Government" means,-

(i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of, a State, the State Government;

(ii) in relation to acquisition of land

situated within a Union territory (except Puducherry), the Central Government;

(iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union territory of Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of Puducherry;

(iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more than one State, the Central Government, in consultation with the concerned State Governments or Union territories; and

(v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union as may be specified by notification, the Central Government:

Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government;"

12. On a plain reading of the provision, we find that under clause (i) the State Government is competent to initiate acquisition process in respect of the land situated within the territory of that State. So long as the acquisition is meant for a public purpose, nothing inhibits the State Government from acquiring the land, it being the 'appropriate Government' under the aforesaid provision. It would be contrary to the very legislative scheme to say that the public purpose of acquisition must relate to the State Government. Since the acquisition can be made for any bona fide public purpose and if that test for acquisition is satisfied, the State Government is competent and will be the 'appropriate Government' to initiate the acquisition process. We may hasten to add that even if the public purpose, for which acquisition is made, emanates at the instance of the Union of India,

nothing precludes the State to acquire land under Section 3(e)(i) of the 2013 Act and such acquisition process cannot be vitiated for lack of competence, provided that the acquisition satisfies the test of a bona fide public purpose and meets the mandatory procedure contemplated under the 2013 Act.

13. In the case in hand, the land has been acquired for a public purpose of paramount importance, namely, for the construction of additional summer storage tank under the South-Central Railways at Guntakal. The public purpose of acquisition is beyond any doubt. The Division Bench of the High Court has not found any fault with the procedure followed in the instant case. Some of the notifications, including the one issued for Social Impact Assessment Study undertaken by the State, sufficiently indicate that the procedure as contemplated under the 2013 Act has been followed. We are, thus, of the view that the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained.

14. Faced with this, Mr. Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondents submits that reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge to set aside the acquisition process are altogether different. For example, the learned Single Judge held that the acquisition was vitiated as no award was passed within the stipulated period. The said finding has not been found fault with by the Division Bench of the High Court. It is urged that the respondents are entitled to assail the acquisition

process on the grounds on which they were successful before the learned Single Judge.

15. Having considered the submission, it seems to us that the reasons, which found favour with the learned Single Judge, have not been negated by the Division Bench of the High Court. In this view of the matter and in all fairness, we deem it appropriate to remit the case to the Division Bench of the High Court to accord an opportunity to the respondents to urge the grounds other than that of the competence of the State Government to acquire the land for the Railways.

16. Consequently, impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court for the limited purpose to enable the respondents to agitate all such grounds which they had urged before the learned Single Judge and which have not been apparently considered by the Division Bench. It is, however, held and clarified that:

(i) The acquisition of the respondents' land by the State Government for the South-Central Railways, namely, construction of additional summer storage tank fulfills the precondition of bona fide public purpose for which the State Government is competent to acquire the subject land under Section 3(e)(i) of the 2013 Act.

(ii) The possession of the subject land has already been handed over to the South-Central Railways. Therefore, the beneficiary of the acquisition will be at liberty to utilize the subject land for the public purpose for which

it was acquired. There shall be no impediment in this regard and no interim stay affecting the right of the South-Central Railways to utilize the subject land, shall be passed by the High Court.

(iii) Assuming it is found that the acquisition is vitiated in law on some other valid ground, in that event also, the respondents shall be entitled to a revised amount of compensation pursuant to a fresh acquisition process, which can be, if so required, concluded in a time bound manner. In other words, the legal necessity of a fresh procedure, if at all required, should not come in the way of utilization of the subject land for the public purpose for which it was acquired.

17. With these clarifications and directions, the instant appeal is disposed of.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

New Delhi; April 29, 2024

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2591/2024

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-10-2023 in WA No.779/2023 passed by the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amravati)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

P. PRASAD & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.23731/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.23732/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.65019/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 29-04-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Girish Chowdhary, Adv. Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Ms. S.l.soujanya, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohammed Haneef, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR
• Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv. Mr. Y. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

• 2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
• 3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed pof.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed order is placed on the file)