Mootha Venkateswara
Rao (D) Tr. LRS. Vs. Godhavari Co-Op Milk P. Union Ltd.& Ors. [2008] INSC
2079 (3 December 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 @ SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5983 OF 2007 Mootha Venkateswara Rao (Dead) Tr. Lrs. ...
Appellants Godhavari
Co-op Milk P. Union Ltd. & Ors. ...
Respondents
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Pursuant
to a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated
8th June, 1978, the Government of Andhra 2 Pradesh acquired 5 acres of land in
Survey No. 212/1B of Ramanayyapeta in Kakinada Municipality for the purpose of
construction of a mini-dairy. The appellant herein was the claimant before the
Land Acquisition Officer, who passed an award fixing the market value of the
land at Rs.28,750/- per acre. Possession of the lands was taken on 31st August,
1978. The appellant, herein, challenged the acquisition itself by way of a Writ
Petition No.4082 of 1979, which was dismissed on 9th July, 1984. The appeal,
which was preferred from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being Writ
Appeal No. 670 of 1985, was allowed on 7th February, 1991. The matter was
carried to this Court by the respondents herein in SLP (C) No.19302 of 1991,
which ultimately ended in a compromise. The Special Leave Petition was disposed
of on 1st September, 1992, in pursuance of the Memorandum of Settlement filed
by the parties, wherein it was agreed that the date of Notification would be
treated as 7th February, 1991, for all purposes, and, accordingly, the market
value of the lands as prevailing on the said date was to be taken for
determination of compensation.
3.
Subsequent
to the said order passed by this Court, the matter was again taken up by the
Reference Court. After taking into consideration further evidence which was led
and the materials on record, the Reference Court fixed the market value at
Rs.800/- per square yard and aggrieved by the same the respondents herein
preferred an appeal to the High Court, being First Appeal No. 836 of 2003.
During the hearing of the appeal, the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at
between the parties was referred to and while on behalf of the respondents
herein, it was contended that the Reference 4 Court had wrongly fixed the
market value of the acquired lands at Rs.800/- per square yard, on behalf of
the appellant herein, particular emphasis was laid on the fourth paragraph of
the Memorandum of Settlement, which reads as follows:- "The compensation
determined by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada will have to be paid to
the respondent within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In default, the
Acquisition will stand set aside the rights and liabilities of the parties will
be determined in accordance with law."
4.
The
High Court was, however, of the view that despite the fact that payment had not
been made in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, since the main appeal was
being heard, the entire acquisition as such could not be washed away, which
would be detrimental to both the parties. It is on such note that the appeal
was taken up for final decision though, ultimately, the same was dismissed.
5.
This
appeal has been filed by the heirs of the original claimant, who had died in
the meantime, mainly on the question as to whether the High Court had erred in
not setting aside the acquisition proceedings in terms of the compromise which
had been arrived at between the parties and recorded in the order dated 1st
September, 1992 passed in SLP(C) No.19302 of 1991. The other ground, which had
been taken by the appellant, is whether the High Court acted correctly in
directing the respondents to pay the compensation amount, which amounted to
extending the time for making such deposit which was contrary to the terms of
the Memorandum of Settlement.
6.
Appearing
for the appellants, Mr. R. Nariman, learned Senior Advocate, confined his
submissions to the two points indicated hereinabove. Learned counsel urged that
once 6 a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, the terms whereof
had been reduced to writing in the form of a Memorandum of Settlement, it was
not open to the High Court to ignore the terms and conditions contained therein
upon observing that since the main appeal was being heard, the acquisition
proceedings could not be washed away. Mr. Nariman submitted that the approach
of the High Court was entirely wrong since by operation of law the acquisition
proceedings stood set aside on the failure of the respondents to comply with
the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement.
7.
Mr.
Nariman urged that in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement
the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, was directed to determine the
compensation payable to the appellant herein for the land acquired, in
accordance with the provisions 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Certain
other benefits to which the appellant was entitled was also indicated in the
said order. However, what was of utmost importance was the condition that the
compensation which was to be determined by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Kakinada, would have to be paid to the appellant within a period of 8 weeks
thereafter, in default the acquisition would stand set aside and the rights and
liabilities of the parties would be determined in accordance with law. Mr.
Nariman submitted that in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of
Settlement the learned Subordinate Judge determined the compensation payable to
the appellant on 23.1.2003 and payment of the compensation amount, as per the
determination of the value of the acquired lands by the Subordinate Judge, was
to be made on or before 23.3.2003. However, even when the Special Leave Petition
was filed on 8 2.3.2007, no deposit had been made in terms of the Memorandum
of Settlement.
8.
Mr.
Nariman submitted that since the acquisition itself stood set aside in terms of
the Memorandum of Settlement, the only course left open to the respondents was
to issue a fresh Notification for acquisition of the lands in question and to
proceed in accordance with law, thereafter, in computing the compensation
payable for the land on account of such acquisition. Mr. Nariman also submitted
that the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction and authority in
unilaterally extending the time for depositing the compensation amount, since
according to the terms of the same Memorandum of Settlement the acquisition
proceedings had been set aside.
9.
9.
On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate, submitted
that attempts had been made to deposit the compensation amount with the
Divisional Officer, Kakinada, by sending Demand Drafts for amounts of
Rs.2,13,87,500/- and Rs.11,14,34,033. An application was also moved on behalf
of the respondent State before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kakinada, seeking permission to deposit the said amount, but such prayer was
rejected on 22.8.2007, on the ground that the Special Leave Petition was pending
before this Court. A Civil Revision Petition filed against the said order is
still pending decision in the High Court. Mr. Rao submitted that ultimately by
an order dated 11.10.2007 the High Court granted leave to the State authorities
to deposit the decretal amount before the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kakinada, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Pursuant thereto, the amount 10 was said to have been deposited on 22.10.2007.
10.
It
was submitted that admittedly there was a delay in making the deposit in terms
of the Memorandum of Settlement which formed the basis of the order dated
1.9.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3476 of 1992 filed by the
Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation, but such delay was not
intentional as various proceedings intervened in the meantime. Mr. Rao
submitted that in the appeal, being F.A. No.836 of 2003, filed by Andhra
Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation, the respondent No.2 herein, an interim
order was passed by the High Court on 23rd April, 2003, staying the operation
of the Order dated 23rd January, 2003, passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kakinada, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.800/- per
square yard as on 7.2.1991, 11 which continued to be operative till the appeal
itself was dismissed by the High Court on 9.6.2006. It was also submitted that
immediately after the pronouncement of the Judgment by the High Court, steps
were taken to deposit the compensation amount as per the Memorandum of
Settlement by making an application before the Second Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Kakinada, praying for leave to make such deposit in the execution
proceedings which had been commenced in the meantime. While granting such
prayer, the High Court directed that stay of the execution would be subject to
the condition of the respondent herein depositing 1/4th of the enhanced
compensation in two equal installments within four months from the date of the
order, failing which the said petition would stand dismissed. Since the
respondents were unable to deposit the said amount they filed an application
before the High Court seeking extension of time to make 12 such deposit. On
the other hand, the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No.6832 of 2003 for
restitution of the possession of the acquired land. However, the High Court by
its order dated 30.4.2003 dismissed the Writ Petition and granted the
respondents a further period of two months for making payment of Rs.2 crores in
installments within a period of two months and stayed further proceedings
pursuant to the order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kakinada.
11.
Mr.
Rao submitted that in view of the aforesaid proceedings and the interim order
staying the execution proceedings, the respondents were unable to keep to the
timing in making the deposit. Mr. Rao submitted that keeping in mind all the
aforesaid facts, the High Court had rightly not bound itself to the time period
stipulated in the Memorandum of Settlement 13 for depositing the compensation
amount. Mr. Rao urged that if the submission made on behalf of the appellant
was to be accepted, the only effect will be that a fresh Notification under
Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act would have to be issued and the date for
calculation of the compensation amount would have to be taken from the fresh
date of publication, which was likely to result in a substantial enhancement of
the compensation payable for acquisition of the land in question.
12.
On
a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties, it is clear that the only question which we are called upon to decide
is whether having regard to the conditions imposed in the Memorandum of
Settlement, the acquisition proceedings would stand set aside in view of the
default committed by the State and its authorities in depositing 14 the amount
awarded within the time stipulated in the Settlement.
13.
Admittedly,
the order passed by the Second Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, was to be the
basis of the compensation to be awarded to the appellants herein. However, the
said order also came to be challenged in the High Court and a stay was also
granted to the execution thereof, which lasted till the appeal was finally
dismissed on 9.6.2006. It is only after the dismissal of the appeal and the
vacation of the stay order that the respondents began to take steps for deposit
of the compensation amount as per the Memorandum of Settlement. It is,
therefore, obvious that because of intervening circumstances, the time schedule
contemplated in the Memorandum of Settlement for deposit of the compensation
amount by the respondent stood disturbed. Because of the stay order granted by
the High Court, 15 the respondents were released from the obligation of making
such deposit within eight weeks from the date on which the compensation was
determined by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada (Second Additional Senior
Civil Judge). In our view, once the respondents stood released of the
obligation of making the deposit within the time specified in the Memorandum of
Settlement by the orders of Court, it will no longer be available to the
appellant to claim that because of the default in making the deposit, the
acquisition should stand set aside in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement.
The questions posed by Mr. Nariman at the beginning of the submissions, have
therefore, to be answered against the appellant and in favour of the
respondent.
Firstly, the
acquisition proceeding does not stand set aside on account of the default on
the part of the respondents in making the deposit within 8 weeks from the 16
determination of the value of the acquired land by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Kakinada. Consequentially, even the second question raised by Mr.
Nariman that the High Court had acted without jurisdiction in extending the
time for making the deposit cannot also be sustained.
14.
We,
therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High
Court and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Since, the deposits
are said to have already been made pursuant to the permission granted by the
High Court, the claimants to the said compensation will be entitled to withdraw
the same upon proper identification.
15.
There
will be no order as to costs.
..............................................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
..............................................J.
Back
