Guduchutlu Lalaiah Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer, (Spl. Tahsildar) (L.A.) - Court Judgment |
| Property |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Nov-09-1993 |
| Writ Petition No. 2794 of 1992 |
| B. Subhashan Reddy, J. |
| 1993(3)ALT541 |
| Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 28A; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 |
| Guduchutlu Lalaiah |
| The Land Acquisition Officer, (Spl. Tahsildar) (L.A.) |
| R. Kameswara Rao, Adv. |
| G.P. |
.....and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults..........matter whether the petitioner received the amount of compensation under protest or without protest. the contention of the respondent that the amount was received without protest, which can only be raised when a reference was sought to be made under section 18 of the act, has got no relevance insofar as section 28-a of the act is concerned. the provisions of section 28-a of the act are inserted by the amending act 68 of 1984 on the touch-stone of article 14 of the constitution of india. as the reasons given by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the amount of compensation are not tenable, i set aside the impugned order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the respondent and direct him to consider the application of the petitioner for re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions as contained under section 28-a of the act. it is needless to mention that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the judgment on which reliance is placed before the respondent.2. the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. no costs.
ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions contained Under Section. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By memo in Re. No. A2-25/84, dated 22-1-1992 the respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on die ground that the amount of compensation was received by the petitioner without protest. In other respects the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent Under Section 28-A of the Act is found to be in order. But the reasons given by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act is neither relevant nor sustainable. For invocation of Section 28-A of the Act, it does not matter whether the petitioner received the amount of compensation under protest or without protest. The contention of the respondent that the amount was received without protest, which can only be raised when a reference was sought to be made Under Section 18 of the Act, has got no relevance insofar as Section 28-A of the Act is concerned. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act are inserted by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As the reasons given by the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the redetermination of the amount of compensation are not tenable, I set aside the impugned order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the respondent and direct him to consider the application of the petitioner for re-determination of the amount of compensation by invoking the provisions as contained Under Section 28-A of the Act. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the judgment on which reliance is placed before the respondent.
2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.