IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 8 3) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBEJ^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ••V 04 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR / WRIT PETITION NO: 5061 OF 2024 Between: 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali Division, fenali - 522201. 2. The Postmaster, Head Post Office. Bapatia- 522 101. ...Petitioners AND 1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block. New Delhi, 110001. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Tax Commissionerate, Guntur. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central T ax and Central Excise, Amaravati COST Divisional Office, Central Revenues Building, MG Road, Vijayawada. 4. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Tenali CGST Range, Tenali. 5. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, D.No.28-14-17, Surya Bagh, Besides Melody Theatre, Visakhapatnam -530020. 6. Superintendent of Central Tax, ARC, Amaravathi CGSf Division, Vijayawada ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order-in-Original No.6/2022- 23-S.Tax dated 12.08.2022 \\ confirming the demand of Rs.34,93,742/-in as Service Tax inclusive of Cesses payable on the taxable services viz. Courier Agency Service, Insurance Auxiliary Service and Business Auxiliary Service provided during the period from 01.04.2014 to 30.06.2017 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1993 read with Section 174 of COST Act, 2017 and thereby imposing penalty of Rs.34,93,742/- under sub-section (I) of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of COST Act, 2017, penalty of Rs, 10,000 under Section 77(1 )(a) of the Finance Act, read with Section 174 of COST Act, 2017 for not taking registration within the prescribed time and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the COST Act, 2017 for non-filing of ST-3 returns as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of principles of natural Justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the Order-in- Original No.6/2022-23-S.Tax dated 12.08.2022. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order-in-Original No.6/2022-23- S.Tax dated 12.08.2022 forthwith to direct the Respondents to not take any coercive steps against the Petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block. New Delhi, 110001. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Tax Commissionerate, Guntur. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central T ax and Central Excise, Amaravati COST Divisional Office, Central Revenues Building, MG Road, Vijayawada. 4. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Tenali CGST Range, Tenali. 5. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, D.No.28-14-17, Surya Bagh, Besides Melody Theatre, Visakhapatnam -530020. 6. Superintendent of Central Tax, ARC, Amaravathi CGST Division, Vijayawada. ...Petitioners AND 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali Division, fenali - 522201. 2. The Postmaster, Head Post Office. Bapatia- 522 101. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024 in W.P. No. 5061 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI Y N VIVEKANANDA SC FOR CENTRAL TAX The Court made the following order: 1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR XA/RIT PETITION Mn SQ61 of 2024 order.- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) Heard Sri. G. Arun Showri, learned Central Government Superintendents of Post Offices in the and Sri. Y.N.Vivekananda, the Principal Commissioner of 1. Counsel appearing for the State, i.e., the Petitioners herein learned counsel representing Central Tax Commissionerate, Guntur-Respondents. Central Tax, this Writ Petition is the levy and non tax. The said levy was opposed on the ground The issue involved in payment of service that it was only a book adjustment. Thus, the matter resulted in 2. dated 12.08.2022, which assessment and levy by an order, order in original is impugned in the Writ Petition. an limb of the Union Government in our prima facie opinion, involved or rather As the petitioner is also a 3. and the issues involved were appearing to be superficial. The issues before the Court, is one of non-observation of the canvassed principles of natural justice. The Court had respondents to secure instructions as suggested to the learned counsel for the to whether the issue could 4. 2 be dissipated in an amicable manner, as the entities involved were mere branches of the Union Government. The counsel for the respondent has filed into the Registry additional affidavit of one Sri.S.Narasimha Reddy, S/o. presently discharging duties as Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur CGST Commissionerate, Guntur, wherein, it is deposed as under in paragraph Nos.5, 6 5. an S. Prathapa Reddy, and 7; “5. In this regard, it is to submit that the respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to the CBIC, New Delhi through the Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Tax, Visakhapatnam Zone for clarification in the matter. 6.The CBIC vide letter dated 09.10.2024 (copy enclosed) has advised the respondent No.2 to request the Hon’ble Court to remand all the cases filed by the Head Post Offices falling under the Guntur CGST jurisdiction to the original authority for re-adjudicating the matter. y.Therefore, in terms of the instructions received this Additional affidavit is being filed with a prayer that the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to remand the Writ Petitions filed by the Head Post Officers to the original adjudicating authority for re-adjudication of the issue in the light of the Board’s latest instructions.” The additional affidavit is deposed on the strength of the instructions issued by the CBIC, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioners also consented for a remand of all the cases to the competent authority. In that view of the matter, the additional affidavit is taken on 6. 7. record. 3 The consent by the learned counsel for the petitioners and 8. respondents is placed on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order and remanding back the same to the authority for consideration and disposal, in 1 adjudicating accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, stands disposed of. There 9. shall be no order as to costs. sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. As a SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAF! ASSISTANT registrar //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block. New Delhi, 110001. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Tax Commissionerate, Guntur. 3 jhe Assistant Commissioner of Central T ax and Central Excise, Amaravati COST Divisional Office, Central Revenues Building, MG Road, Vijayawada. 4. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Tenali CGST Range, Tenali. 5 The Deputy Director., Directorate General of GST Intelligence, ' Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, D.No.28-14-17, Surya Bagh, Besides Melody Theatre, Visakhapatnam -530020. 6. The Superintendent of Central Tax, ARC, Amaravathi CGST Division Vijayawada. 1. One CC to Sri. G.Arun Showri(Central Govt. Cousel) [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri. Y N Vivekananda SC for Central Tax [OPUC] 9. One CC to Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] Three CD Copies 10. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:14/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.5061 of 2024 13 MAR 2025 . Curreni becuon X S- o». DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS I Xi# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 23259 OF 2020 Between; 1. Sri. Tulluru Sudhakar Rao, S/o Gangadhara Rao, Aged about 47 R/o D. No. 132, Kauur Post, Ligamguntia, Chilakaluripet, Guntur Dist. 2. Uppu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 52 Yrs Venkatachari Nagar, Guntur Dist. 3. Divvela Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murti 2466 Gandhipeta, 3rd lane, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 4. Pothuri Ragavaiah, S/o Naga Bhusanam, Aged 2698, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 5. Orsu Anjaneyulu, S/o Veera Swami Bondilipalem, ward no 21 Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 6. Nadella Shiva Ramaiah, S/o Rataiah 422174 Tenali p and m Guntur Dist. 7. Nandigam Koteswara Rao, S/o Venkateswariu 1573 Endugamaplem, Nade- Fidla(M) Guntur Dist. years. R/o. H. No. 12305 aged about 52 Yrs, H. No. about 80 yrs, D. No. aged about 49 Yrs, D No 1861 aged about 65 Yrs, D. No. aged about 42 D. No. ...Petitioners AND \ 1. The Government of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. Land Acquisition Officer -cum -Dist. Collector Prakasham District, At Ongole. LAO, for New Broad Gage Railway Lane-Between Nadikudi and SriKalahasthi. District Collector Prakasham. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Sub collector, Kandukuru, Prakasham District. 4. The South Central Railways, Rep by its General Manager Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. 5. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. (R5 is impleaded as per the order of this court dt 26/12/2022 vide order passed in lA 02/2022) ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased issue an order, writ or proceeding more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, Declaring that (A)The action of the respondents 1 to 3 in refusing to determine the market value of the petitioners lands in Sy. No. 1059/2, 1067/2C, 1067/2F, 1067/3 in an extent of Ac.2.90 Cts, at Podili Village, Prakasham District, as per the criteria U/Sec.26 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, pursuant to 2nd respondents notification dt. 21.05.018 in R.C. No. DT/116/2016 as Illegal, Arbitrary, Violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Ultravires the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and violative of Art.14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and is in violation of the order dt. 26.04.2019 in W.P.No. 3203/2019 (B)The actiorr of the respondents 1 to 3 in refusing to consider the market 1 value under the Indian Stamp Act as on the date of preliminary notification dated. 21.05.2018 U/Sec 11(1) of the Act, for the petitioners lands as Arbitrary, Illegal, Violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Ultravires their powers/provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. C The action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in trying to proceed with acquisition of petitioners lands in contravention of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, pursuant to 2nd respondents notification dated. 21.05.018 in R.C. No. DT/116/2016 as Arbitrary, Illegal, Violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Ultravires their powers and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and in violation of the order dt. 26.04.2019 in W.P.No. 3203 of 2019. D) Consequently to declare the order dated 28. 09. 2020 passed by the 3rd respondent in RCA No 3645 /2015 and the subsequent proceedings of the respondent no 5 vide proceedings no G1 /1503 /2015 dated 04 .11 .2020, in approving the order of the 3rd respondent as illegal arbitrary without authority and ultra vires the provisions of Sec 26 of Act 30 of 2013. ( Prayer is amended as per the order of this Court dt 26/12/2022 vide order passed in lA 01/2022.) lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to determine the market value of the petitioners' lands affected by acquisition in Sy. No. 1059/2, 1067/2C, 1067/2F, 1067/3 in an extent of Ac.2.90 Cts, situated at Podili, Prakasham District, following the criteria U/Sec. 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. 2013, before proceeding further pursuant to 2nd respondent's notification dt.21.05.2018 in R.C. No. DT/116/2016. % lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to 2nd respondent's notification dt.21.05.2018 in R.C. Na. DT/116/2016, including for passing of an award, taking possession etc., in respect of petitioners' lands in Sy. No. 1059/2, I067/2C, 1067/2F, 1067/3, in an extent of Ac.2.90 Cts. situated at Podili, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order in I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in W.P. No. 23259 of 2020 dated 11-12-2022 Pending adjudication of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order in lA No. 1 of 2020 in WP No. 23259 of 2020 dated 29-08-2023 Pending adjudication of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated on 11.12.2020, in lA. No:1 of 2020 in W.P. No: 23259 of 2020, Pending adjudication of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 1. The South Central Railways, Rep by its General Manager Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. ... Vacate Petitioner/ 4^” Respondent AND 1. Sri. Tulluru Sudhakar Rao, S/o Gangadhara Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o D. No. 132, Kauur Post, Ligamguntia, Chilakaluripet, Guntur Dist. 2. Uppu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 52 Yrs, R/o. H. No. 12305 Venkatachari Nagar, Guntur Dist. 3. Divvela Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murti, aged about 52 Yrs, H. No. 2466 Gandhipeta, 3rd lane, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 4. Pothuri Ragavaiah, S/o Naga Bhusanam, Aged about 80 yrs, D. No. 2698, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 5. Orsu Anjaneyulu, S/o Veera Swami aged about 49 Yrs, D No 1861 Bondilipalem, ward no 21 Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 6. Nadella Shiva Ramaiah, S/o Rataiah, aged about 65 Yrs, D. No. 422174 Tenali p and m Guntur Dist. 7. Nandigam Koteswara Rao, S/o Venkateswariu aged about 42 D. No. 1573 Endugamaplem, Nade- Fidla(M) Guntur Dist. 8. The Government of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 9. Land Acquisition Officer -cum -Dist. Collector Prakasham District, At Ongole. LAO, for New Broad Gage Railway Lane-Between Nadikudi and SriKalahasthi. District Collector Prakasham. The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Sub collector, Kandukuru, Prakasham District. 10. / The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 11. ...Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No: 1 of 2020 dated; 11- 12-2020 and consequently prays to dismiss the writ petition. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 1. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. (R5 is impleaded as per the order of this Court dt. 26.12.2022 vide order passed in lA No.2/2022) ... Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Tulluru Sudhakar Rao, S/o Gangadhara Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o D. No. 132, Kauur Post, Ligamguntia, Chilakaluripet, Guntur Dist. 2. Uppu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kotaiah, aged about 52 Yrs, R/o. H. No. 12305 Venkatachari Nagar, Guntur Dist. 3. Divvela Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murti, aged about 52 Yrs, H. No. 2466 Gandhipeta, 3rd lane, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 4. Pothuri Ragavaiah, S/o Naga Bhusanam, Aged about 80 yrs, D. No. 2698, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 5. Orsu Anjaneyulu, S/o Veera Swami aged about 49 Yrs, D No 1861 Bondilipalem, ward no 21 Chilakaluripeta, Guntur Dist. 6. Nadella Shiva Ramaiah, S/o Rataiah, aged about 65 Yrs, D. No. 4-22- 17-4 Tenali Guntur Dist. / 7. Nandigam Koteswara Rao, S/o Venkateswariu aged about 42 D. No. 1573 Endugamaplem, Made- Fidla(M) Guntur Dist. ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners 8. The Government of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 9. Land Acquisition Officer -cum -Dist. Collector Prakasham District, At Ongole. LAO, for New Broad Gage Railway Lane-Between Nadikudi and SriKalahasthi. District Collector Prakasham. The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Sub collector, Kandukuru, Prakasham District. The South Central Railways, Rep by its General Manager Rail Nilayam Secunderabad. (R 8 to 11 are not necessary parties in this petition) 10. 11. ...Respondents/Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated. 11.12.2020 in lA No.1 of 2020 in WP No.23259 of 2020 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. P V A PADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,3&5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI JUPUDI V.K. YAGNADUTT, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL The Court made the following order; 1 APHC010349992020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 23259/2020 Between: Sri. Tulluru Sudhakar Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.P VAPADMANABHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri P.V.A.Padmanabham, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Doddala Yathindra Dev, learned Special Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1®* to 3'’'^ respondents and 2 Sri Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Central appearing for the 4'^ respondent. 0^ Government Standing Counsel 2. The instant writ petition is filed chailenging the proceedings of the respondents for acquisition of the Sy.Nos. 1059/2, 1067/2C, 1067/2F, 1067/3 Podili Village, Prakasam District, petitioners' property located in in an extent of Ac.2.90 cents at pursuant to the notification of the 2'« respondent dated 21.05.2018, without determining the market value under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Act, 2013, (for short Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement the Act’) seeking the following relief: The action of the determine the market Sy. No: 1059/2, respondents 1 to 3 in refusing to value of the petitioners’ lands in 1067/2C, 1067/2F, 1067/3 in an extent of U/SeooTf theTlJf'T ZnH f r Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 pursuant to respondent's notification df 2105 2018 in tura! Justice, Ultra vires the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 violative oi Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and is in violation of the order dt: 26.04.2019 In .WP.No 3203/2019 Of and respondents 1 to 3 in refusing to consider the market value under the Indian Stamp Act as on the date of preliminary notification dated: 21.05.2018 U/Sec the petitioners' lands NaturalJustice, Ultra 11(1) of the Act, for as Arbitrary, Illegal, Violative of Principles . , "’Tires their powers/provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of of India; ^ ^ respendents In trying la proceed with acquisition of petitioners' lands in contravention of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. pursuant to lespondent notification dated: 21.05.2018 in R.c. No: DT/116/2016 as ArbZr.^ 3 Illegal, Violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Ultra vires their powers and violative of Art. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and in violation of the order dt: 26.04.2019 in .WP.No; 3203 of 2019 and to pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (D) Consequently to declare the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the 3''^ respondent in RCA No. 3645/2015 and the subsequent proceedings of the respondent no. 5 vide proceedings no G1/1503/2015 dated 04.11.2020, in approving the order of the 3'^ respondent as illegal arbitrary without authority and ultra vires the provisions of Sec 26 of Act 30 of 2013 and pass such other or further order as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." The brief facts of the case are:- 3. Petitioners are owners of the subject land comprised in Sy.Nos.1059/2, 1067/2C. 1067/2F, 1067/3 in an extent of Ac.10.27 cents at Podili Village, Prakasam District. The lands were initially held by the petitioners’ as agricultural lands. Later in 2015, application for conversion of the lands from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose was made and vide proceedings of the 3’’'^ respondent dated 30.04.2015, the lands were permitted to be converted into non-agricultural purposes. (a) Subsequently on 21.05.2018, proposing to acquire the subject lands along with other lands, for construction of railway line between Nadikudi and Srikalahasti stations, notification under Section 11(1) of the Act 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 30 of 2013’) was issued. (b) 4 (c) A protest was held 2'^'^ and 3''^ respondents, regarding the market value. on the day fixed for enquiry, against the method adopted in determining the were staged against the 2'^'^ could not participate in the award On account of protests that and 3^^^ respondents, the petitioners enquiry that was scheduled on 08.02.2019. Since the petitioners did have the opportunity to participate in the enquiry that was conducted 08.02.2019, apprehending that the respondents not on would pass award without determining the market value as provided under Section 26 of the Act, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3203 of 2019. The Petition was disposed of, directing the respondents said Writ to give an opportunity determining the market to the petitioners to submit their objections, before value of the subject lands. (d) In pursuance thereof, representations to the 2"*^ the petitioners have respondent on 08.05.2019 made 21.05.2019, 13.06.2019, 29.07.2019, 17.08.2019 and 07.09.2019, respondents to determine the market value i requesting the - in terms of the provisions of The 2"d respondent vide order dated Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013 02.11.2019 directed the R.D.O. petitioners’ objections and fix the market value. the 3'’'^ respondent herein, to consider the In connection thereof, the 10.12.2019 and 18.01.2020. not give the petitioners any opportunity petitioners have made representations dated However, the respondents did 5 despite the directions of this Court. As the orders of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition were not complied with, the petitioners filed a Contempt Case in C.C.Sr.No.9764/2020. Thereafter, the petitioners were asked to appear before the respondent on 25.09.2020. Even thereafter, as the respondents did not inform anything, it is stated that the petitioners filed further representation on 29.10.2020. Since the representations were not considered, the petitioners approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition on 19.11.2020. The Joint Collector issued notice on 20.11.2020 to appear before him on 14.12.2020. It is stated that thereafter, the writ petition was numbered. and the interim orders were passed directing the respondents not to finalize the award. It is further contended that from the contents of the counter 4. affidavit of the 1®* to respondents filed in the case, the petitioners have come to know of the proposals of valuation at Rs.6 lakhs per acre, which the Joint Collector appears to have approved. Therefore, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application seeking amendment of the prayer challenging the said proceedings dated 28.09.2020 and 04.11.2020. The 1®‘ to 3'''^ respondents filed counter affidavit contending that preliminary notification and declarations were published and an opportunity was provided on 11.02.2019 for giving consent. However, none of the petitioners have attended the award enquiry but filed writ 5. petition in W.P.No.3203 of 2019. Pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition, the objections of the petitioners were forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, for examination and submission of proposals of preliminary valuation. The valuation proposals submitted by the RDO were forwarded to the Collector. Basing on the same, award enquiry notice was issued to the petitioners fixing the date of hearing It is further stated that in terms of the provisions of the Section 26 (1) of the Act 30 of 13, market value was fixed at Rs.6 lakhs per acre in respect of lands abutting National Highways, and for agricultural lands the same was fixed at Rs.3,88,736/- per acre. as 14.12.2020. 6. It is contended by the respondents that after the draft notification, award enquiry notice was issued to all the concerned land owners. The land owners have appeared for enquiry and gave consent for acquisition of the lands. Draft award was passed in respect of the entire extent of the lands notified, leaving Ac.2.90 cents belonging to the petitioners since by then, the petitioners have already filed the writ petition in W.P.No.3203 of 2019. It is further contended that the subject lands agricultural lands while peg marking was done during the course of identification of lands for subject acquisition, the petitioners got alerted and filed application seeking conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural. Though the petitioners have claimed the subject land are as non-agricultural, there is no construction activity in the subject lands and the surrounding areas are agricultural lands. Further contended that the value claimed by the petitioners, is not indicating the correct prevailing market value of the lands under acquisition and the lands within the The lands of the petitioners are similar to the lands in Sy.No.453/2B and Sy.No.888 and 1102 etc, which are adjacent to National Highways. The basic value as adopted to the lands abutting National Highways, at Rs.6 lakhs was proposed to be fixed, in respect of the subject lands also, treating the lands as adjacent to National Highways. Petitioners were given an opportunity to attend enquiry that Thereafter, the preliminary value proposals were submitted to the 2"“^ respondent on 28.09.2020. Pursuant to the same, the 2^^ respondent passed orders on 04.11.2020 approving the preliminary value proposals at Rs.6 lakhs per acre and further directed the 3’^'* respondent to send the draft award. The said fixation of market value is in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice was issued to the petitioners requiring them to appear before the 3^'^ respondent for enquiry on 14.12.2020, failing which appropriate action under Sections 65, 76 & 77 of the Act, would be taken. It is further contended that if the petitioners are not agreeable to the award, they can file an application for Reference of the matter to the appropriate authority under Section 64 (1) of the Act. vicinity. was scheduled on 25.09.2020. 8 7. The 5*h respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the RDO, Kandukur, has reported that the subject lands non-agricultural purpose during 2015 while were converted into the lands were identified for was done. It is further stated that at acquisition and peg marking of conversion of lands to lands was Rs.2 lakhs Rs. 72,60,000/- the time non-agricultural lands, the basic value per acre. It is further stated that the basic of the value is per acre as on 01.08.2015 and Rs.82,28,000/- per acre as on 01.08.2017, if the lands are treated as house sites. Whereas, agricultural lands, which the basic value of the are fit for house sites is Rs.38,72,000/- per acre. In the area, no layout plan was appropriate authority though approved by the the lands were converted no development activity in the area and into non-agricultural and there is houses were constructed, the actual prevailing market value Act 30 of 2013, the above preliminary valuation submitted Rs.6 lakhs per acre directed to send draft petitioners were asked to enquiry scheduled to 14.12.2020 without availing the said opportunity has filed no Since the above basic value IS not indicating applying Explanation 4 to Section 26 of was discounted. Accepting the by the RDO, fixing the market basic value value at was accepted and the Sub-Collector, Kandukur, proceedings for further action. Thereafter, the appear before the 3'"'^ was respondent for award It is contended that the petitioners the instant writ petition. 9 The petitioners filed reply affidavit, to the counter affidavit filed by the 5*'^ respondent, contending that the competent authority has fixed the market value for the purpose of the Stamps Act. The procedure 8. is provided under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, by a Committee, designated for the said purpose. And the respondents are bound by the market value so fixed. 9. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner(s) filed the proceedings issued under RTI Act, pursuant to the application of the petitioner, intimating the market value of the subject lands with effect from 01.08.2015 to 31.07.2017 as Rs. 72,60,000/- per acre and from 01.08.2017 to till date (i.e., 28.02.2019) as Rs.82,28,000/-per acre. The Counter affidavit on behalf of the 4“^ respondent is also 10. filed, stating that the Ministry of Railways has taken up the construction of new Broad Gauge Railway line between Nadikudi - Srikalahasti (308 kms length) along with Government of Andhra Pradesh for providing better railway services. The project was sanctioned in 2011-12. And the subject lands were required for laying the line between Darsi, Podili, and Kanigiri Stations. All the land acquisition proposals were submitted in 2016-18. It is further stated that an extent of 45 Kms of new line has been commissioned in 2020 and another 27 kms is likely to be commissioned in 2023-24 and to proceed further on this national - infrastructura l railway 10 project (beyond Darsi station towards Kanigiri) availability of land in Podili Village is essentially required. The land of Ac.2.90 cents covers only 200m in the stretch of the project (from Kms 123.600 - 123.800). It is further stated that Railways have already have taken up formation works, bridges on either side of these lands. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri P.V.A.Padmanabham, argues that the misinterpretation of the provisions Section 26 of the Act would render the decision making process an illegal one, on account of the procedural impropriety and irrationality. Thus amenable for judicial review of the order. In support of his contention he relies on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sutni Sangam and Others\ wherein it is observed as under: “25. For the purposes of Land Acquisition Act, proceedings are carried on by an officer appointed by the Government known as the Land Acquisition Collector. The proceeding before the Land Acquisition Collector is of an administrative nature and not of a judicial or quasi judicial character. When a Government intends to occupy a land in any locality it has to issue a notification under Section 4 in the Official Gazette as also the newspaper and give a public notice which entitles anyone on behalf of the Government to enter into the land for the purposes of digging, taking level, set out boundaries etc.” 1(2009) 16 see 1 11 12. He further contends that the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 are mandatory provisions, the orders passed in violation of the same would amount to procedural impropriety and irrationality rendering the decision taken an illegal one. And he further argues that determination of compensation under Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013 has bearing on the other proceedings that are to be initiated under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. Any infraction of the procedure would also amount to rendering the order passed a null and void one. If the statute confers a discretion, the discretion has to be exercised in the manner provided under the statute and not in any other manner, that is not contemplated in the statute. He thus relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and another Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others^, wherein it is observed as under: “22. Judicial review conventionally is concerned with the question of jurisdiction and natural justice and the Court is not much concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was reached. In Council of Civil Service Unions Vs. Minister of State for Civil Service, (GCHQ Case) the House of Lords rationalized the grounds of judicial review and ruled that the basis of judicial review could be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision 2 (2010) 6 see 614 1 12 # maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act etc., fall under the heading “illegality”. Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons, etc. 23. Ground of irrationality takes in Wednesbury unreasonableness propounded in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, wherein Lord Greene MR alluded to the grounds of attack which could be made against the decision, citing unreasonableness as an 'umbrella concept’ which covers the major heads of review and pointed out that the court can interfere with a decision if it is so absurd that no reasonable decision-maker would in law come to it. In GCHQ Case Lord Diplock fashioned the principle of unreasonableness and preferred to use the term “irrationality” as follows: (ii) Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Emta Coal Limited ^ 76. The duty of the court Is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? ^ (2022) 2 see 1 13 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii)lrrationality, unreasonableness. (Hi) Procedural impropriety. State of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev Alias Bittoo'^ namely. Wednesbury (Hi) “One of the points that falls for determination is the scope for judicial interference in matters of administrative decisions. Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad area of governmental activities in which the repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature. It is trite law that exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly '■(2005) 5 see 181 p 14 arbitrary (See State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. ” Professor De Smith in his classical work "Judicial Review of Administrative Action", 4th Edition at pages 285-287 states the legal position in his own terse language that the relevant principles formulated by the Courts may be broadly summarized as follows: The authority in which discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, discretion exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it; it must not act under the dictates of another body or disable itself from exercising discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion, it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be influenced by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily capriciously. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: (i) failure to exercise a discretion, and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes must be purposes or are not, however, mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be improperly fettered because irrelevant considerations have been taken into account, and where an authority hands discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. ” over its (iv) N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose and Others^ = (2009) 7 see 1 15 % "JUDICIAL REVIEW Judicial review in our constitutional scheme itself is a part of its basic structure. Decisions whether arrived at by the Executive or the Judiciary are subject to judicial review. 105. 106. The Chief Justice of a High Court, while making such recommendations, exercises statutory functions. While it is incumbent upon the State Government to consult the Chief Justice, keeping in view a large number of decisions of this Court we have referred to hereinbefore, indisputably the Chief Justice of the High Court would have a heavy burden on his shoulder to recommend the name of a person who would be suitable therefor. We are not oblivious of the fact that no court howsoever high would have any power of judicial review in relation thereto. Power of judicial review, although is very restricted, cannot be denied to be exercised when relevant fact is not considered. It is now a well-settled principle of Administrative Law that the doctrine of error of law apparent on the face of the record inter alia would take within its umbrage a case where statutory authority in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction did not take into consideration a relevant fact or based its decision on wholly irrelevant factors not germane for passing the order.” 107. He vehemently contends that the procedure provided under the statute specifies that while determining the market value under Section 26 of the Act, the Collector shall take into consideration the parameters mentioned 13. under the provisions, viz., arrive at the values as mentioned under each of the clauses of Section 26(1)(a),(b),&(c) of the Act, consider the highest figure 16 of the three valuations. The highest of three values should be taken into consideration for determining the market value. Thus, he contends that the Collector/RDO, without arriving at such findings under Section 26(1)(a),(b),&(c) of the Act, applying Explanation 4 to Section 26 of the Act, discounted the market value shown by the registering authorities for registration of the sale deeds under the provisions of the Stamps Act. The learned counsel submits that the provisions of Explanation has been misinterpreted by the authorities, the way it has been applied in the case is not the purport of Explanation 4. As specified under Explanation, the discounting could only be applied while arriving at the value under Section 26(1) (b) of the Act. The learned counsel thus contends that the way the compensation payable to the petitioners determined is in total disregard Therefore, the impugned order calls for to the statutory provisions. interference of this Court. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argues that the manner and method in which the compensation payable to the petitioners is determined, is in blatant violation of the provisions of It is argued that the procedure for Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013. determination of market value contemplated under Section 26 of the Act is mandatory, the respondents cannot deviate or ignore the said provisions while determining the market value of the lands. He, drawing the attention 17 Of the Court, the provisions of Section 26 of the Act contends that the officers shall adopt the criteria as provided under Section 26(1)(a),(b),&(c) of the Act and adopt the higher figure out of the three sub clauses a, b and c. And further argues that the relevant date for determination of market value would be date on which the notification was issued. It is only after determining the market value in terms of Section 26 of the Act, the compensation payable to the land owner shall be determined. The learned counsel further argued that although a strict mandate of the provisions of the Act is prescribed, the respondents have adopted a method in total disregard to the provisions. He thus contends that the same would amount to an infraction of the statutory mandate. He further referring to the definition of word “criteria” as defined under the law lexicon argues that the word ‘criteria’ would mean the manner in which the power is exercised by the authority. When the statutes prescribe a method and manner in which the authority is supposed to function, the authority shall function in the same manner without looking for relaxations and contends that the provisions of Section 26 of the Act are mandatory and do not vest the authority with any discretionary power. The word “whichever is higher under Section 26 (1) of the Act connotes that the higher figure should be taken into account without any demur. The learned counsel, further referring to Chapter 12 of the Act, which contains Sections 84, 85, 87 and 88 of the Act, contends that infractions in following the statutory procedure 18 penalties and prosecution compliance of the procedure adopted is in violation of pri proceedings of the Joint Collector and the RDO of mind. are provided in the Act, which depicts the provisions of the Act. He further strict contends that the principles of natural justice and that the suffer from non-application 1 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that the Section 26 (1) of the Act should compensation, relies on the following decisions: mandate prescribed under the provisions of be followed while determining the (') Judgment of Kerala High Couh in the case of Santha Kumar I/s. State ofKerala^, wherein it is observed as under: "15. On an analysis of Clauses the Act, it could be unambiguous and it I Collector to make (3) to (c) of Section 26 of seen that the legislative mandate is IS obligatory on the part of the District an enquiry, adopting different methods envisaged under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 26 fix the market value at the of the Act, to rate whichever is found higher in a close analysis of Clauses (a) to (c) of Sscmn 26 Of me Act. it coutO t>e seen mat. even mougn an option IS given by inseiting or between each clause, by incorporating the expression •whichever is higher at the end. an enquiry by adopting all methods and application which Is found higher in such enquiry, are made The market value of each criterion the enquiry. On of criteria mandatory, under Clauses (a) to (c) of ® (2016) see Online Ker 15424 "■x 19 Section 26 of the Act shall be explored and higher value must be taken as market value of the acquired property. 17. In the above analysis, I find that the determination of market value in Ext.P3 Award is vitiated by procedural irregularities and illegalities and the Award and all the orders issued, on the basis of the said Award, are liable to be set aside and I do so. The matters will stand remitted back to the District re-determine the market value of all the properties involved in these three writ petitions, strictly in compliance with the statutory requirements under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 26 of the Act. ” Collector and he shall (ii) Judgement of Madras High Court in the case of J.Siluvairajan Vs. District Collector and Others^, Though no serious objections can be there from the respondents for disposal of appeal, which was preferred under Section 3(g)(5) of the National Highways Act, this Court noticed the improper way, by which the compensation has been determined by the second respondent while passing the award. It is not in dispute that while determining compensation for the lands acquired under the National Highways Act, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred as Act 30 of 2013) applies. /As per Section 26, the market value or guideline value for the purpose of registration of sale deeds or agreements can be considered. Similarly, the average sale price for similar type of land in the nearest village or nearest vicinity can be taken. The amount which w/as agreed to be ‘3. 5. ^ (2020) see Online Mad 1962 20 paid by private negotiations, if it is higher than the market value taken from other sources also can be taken. It is made clear that the market 9/18 value should be assessed on the date of notification under Section 11 of the Act, that is the date of publication of preliminary notification. Insofar as acquisition under National Highways is concerned, the date of preliminary notice under Section 3 (AJ is the relevant date for fixation of compensation for the land acquired. as 7. As per Explanation II, one half of the total number of sale deeds, where highest sale price is mentioned should be taken into account. This means that the competent authority should collect all the sale deeds and according to the value shown in the lands, after discarding 50% of the sale deeds from the bottom line, the sale deeds showing higher value should be taken. Then, the average sale price should be determined by taking into account 50% of the sale deeds showing higher value and by taking the average value. However, it is open to the Collector to discard document, if he is of the opinion that the price mentioned in the document does not indicate the actual prevailing market value. There must be application of mind and a document can be discounted only for valid reason and there can be no presumption. any 11. The market value determined by the competent authority shall be multiplied by the factor to be specified in the first schedule. This factor depends upon area, whether it is urban or semi urban or rural area. The factor for multiplication should be considered and there should be specific indication in the award itself and how the classification of the area n/as done for fixing the multiplying factor. In all similar cases, this Court has come across during the last three months, this Court shockingly noticed that the award of competent authority in majority of cases 21 do not disclose the documents considered and how the value was arrived at while fixing the average sale price. Even in the present case, the second respondent has passed the award on the basis of certain values without disclosing the factual basis/documents which were collected in terms of Section 26 of the Act. Having regard to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it may be open to the land owner to challenge the award of competent authority with limited scope and hence, this Court is of the view that the award of competent authority should be strictly in terms of the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act and the award should also disclose application of mind and reflect the materials and documents considered by the competent authority while fixing compensation. Otherwise the land owners will not be able to file appeal or challenge award in an effective manner. Unless the award of competent authority or Collector shows the observance of procedure and consideration of all factors by referring to all materials, the award is liable to be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 13. 16. He further goes on arguing that the discretion that is not contemplated under the provisions cannot be exercised. He relies on the following decisions of the Hon’be Apex Court in the said regard; (i) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and Others^ The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is a well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be ‘8. AIR 1964 SC 358 22 exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act ir any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.. ” in (ii) A.K. Roy and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others^ “If the requirements of a statute which prescribe the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner and in no other manner, it has been laid down that those requirements are in all cases absolute, and that neglect to attend to them will Invalidate the whole proceeding. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. The intention of the Legislature in enacting section 20(1) was to confer a power on the authorities specified therein which power had to be exercised in the manner provided and not otherwise. ” (Hi) Km. Sonia Bhatia Vs. State ofU.P. and Others^^ “It is well settled that a legislature does not waste words without any Intention, and every word that is used by the legislature must be given its due import and significance. In the Instant case, the words 'adequate consideration' have undoubtedly a well recognized concept and, as indicated above, the intention w/as to exclude transaction which is not for adequate consideration. any ^(1986) 4 see 326 (1981)2 see 585 "ns 23 xxxx It is well settled that an Explanation merely widens the scope of the main section and it is not meant to curve out a particulars exemption to the content of the main section. ” The learned counsel further argues that the intention of the 17. legislature in enacting the subject statute i.e, the Act, is, to ensure employment of transparent and fair methods in land acquisition proceedings. Thus argues that while determining the compensation fair methods should be adopted that are beneficial to the land loosers. He relies on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of : (i) Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through LRs. And Others Vs. State of Maharashtra'''' “29. The Collector making the offer of compensation on behalf of the state is expected to be fair and reasonable. He is required to offer compensation based on the market value. Unfortunately Collectors invariably offer an amount far less than the real market value, by erring on the safer side, thereby driving the land owner first to seek a reference and prove the market value before the reference court and then approach the High Court and many a time this Court, if he does not get adequate compensation. In most land acquisitions, the land acquired is the only source of his livelihood of the land owner. If the compensation as offered by the Collector is very low, he cannot buy any alternative land. By the time he fights and gets the full 11 (2011) 9 see 325 24 \ market value, most of the amount would have been spent in litigation and living expenses and the price of lands would have appreciated enormously, making it impossible to buy an alternative land. As a result, the land owner seldom has a chance of acquiring a similar land or an equal area of similar land. It would be adding insult to injury, if the land owner should be tied down to a lesser value claimed by him in the reference application, even though he was not required by law to mention the amount of compensation when seeking reference. The Act contemplates the land owner getting the market value as compensation and no technicalities should come in the way of the land owner getting such market value as compensation”. State of U.P. and Others Vs. Manohar^^, (ii) 7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f)was deleted by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows: "300A- Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law,- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." 8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the High Court was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We would 12 (2005) 2 see 126 25 have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed before us. ” (Hi) Pradyumna Mukund Kokil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others''^ “7. In our opinion, it was not fair on the part of the High Court to permit Respondent No. 3 - Municipality to raise a plea with regard to adverse possession. It would not be proper on the part of the Government body or any state authority to take possession of somebody's land without following due process of law and even if a citizen has permitted his land being used by a government authority, the authority should not take undue advantage thereof at the time of compensation when the said land is acquired. ” giving (iv) Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others^"*, 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel 13 (2015) 6 see 406 (2020) 9 see 356 14 26 *9^ performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. 102. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Anr.10, Pattanaik J. observed: “One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for Issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, “Mandamus" means a command”. ” 103. The Court is duty bound to issue a writ of Mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of Mandamus is that Mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through Mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision. Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same. 104. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it 27 is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on soundjudicial principles. ” He thus argues that the procedure adopted by the respondents in determining the market value violates the principles of natural justice in as much as a dozen of representations were given by the petitioners, however, the respondents did not give any opportunity to the petitioners before the market value lands is determined by the respondents vide proceedings dated 28.09.2020 and 04.11.2020. The learned counsel further contends that the conscious and deliberate violation the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, infringes the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the authorities in derogation of the provisions of the Act adopted their own methods in determining the market value by categorizing the lands into “agricultural lands”, “abutting the National Highways” and the “lands having potentiality of house sites”, which is not supported by the provisions of the Act. It is further contended that if any person contravenes the provisions of the Act, attracts penal consequences, as provided under Section 85 of the Act, thereby making strict adherence to the provisions of the Act as mandatory. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the words “or” used in Section 26(1) of the Act would not indicate any discretion being cast upon the officers in determining the market value. It 19. 28 connotes giving three options to the officer responsible for the determination of the compensation, ultimately directing the officer to take the highest of the three values arrived under clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Section 26(1) of the Act. The learned counsel relies on the following decision of the Apex court in support of his proposition: J. Jayalalitha Vs. Union oflndia^^, Wherein it is observed that; (i) "The dictionary meaning of the word 'or' is "a particle used to connect words, phrases, or classes representing alternatives". The word 'oT, which is a conjunction, is normally used for the purpose of joining alternatives and also to join rephrasing of the same thing but at times to mean 'and' also. Alternatives need not always be mutually exclusive. Moreover, the word "or' does not stand in isolation and, therefore, it will not be proper to ascribe to it the meaning which is not consistent with the context of Section 3. It is a matter of common knowledge that the word 'oT is at times used to join terms when either one or the other or both are indicated. XXX We see no good reason to restrict the power of the Government in this behalf by giving a restricted meaning to the Word 'oT. In our opinion, the word or' as used in Section 3 would mean that the Government has the power to do either or both the things. Therefore, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellants has to be rejected." 15 (1999) 5 see 138 29 20. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader Sri Doddala Yathindra Dev, appearing for the 4^^ respondent would contend that basing on internal communications of the department, the writ petition is filed. And no such copies of the proceedings have been served upon the petitioners. 21. He relies on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Others^^, wherein the Apex Court referring to its earlier decision case of Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DDA reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 wherein it was held that notings in a departmental file are nothing than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of other officials for the final decision making. The Hon’ble Apex court has referred to the relevant observations in the case of Sethi Auto service, which read as under; - Officer and in the more “14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and consideration of the other officials of the department and for the benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in 2024 SCC online Sc 1682 30 the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. ” And further refers to its decision in the case of Shanthi Sports Club, wherein it is observed that: “43. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power ofjudicial review." The learned counsel argues that the cause of action for filing 22. the writ petition is the internal correspondence between the officers, which will not constitute valid ground to approach this Court at premature stage. He further argues that the notices for award enquiry was issued, but the petitioners did not appear, however, subsequently also notices were 31 issued to the petitioners to appear before the concerned authority for finalizing the award. And it is further contended that there is an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act and until the award is passed the land owner cannot challenge the internal proceedings. The petitioners did not participate in the award enquiry, despite the notice issued to them to appear on 14.12.2020. 23. The learned counsel further contends that after coming to know of the acquisition proceedings in the area, the petitioners purchased the subject land in 2014. He vehemently contends that the writ petition is premature in as much as no award has been passed and after passing of the award the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act. He further referring to the decision of the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Avirneni Rama Krishna and others^^, contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, wherein it is observed as under; “5. The above provision of the Act makes it clear that the power to determine the compensation vests in the Collector and the amount of compensation to which a claimant is entitled has to be determined by the Collector as per his own opinion. It goes without saying that opinion can neither be formed by hypothesis nor by imagination but on 17 (2010) 4 ALD 405 32 the basis of material, having relevance to the valuation of the property in question. The formation of opinion by the Collector being the principal condition, relevancy of the material or otherwise is the province of the Collector only and there being no provision to the contrary in the Act, it is for him and him alone to decide as to what material is relevant and what is irrelevant, therefore no right of objections much less enforceable one can be claimed to have vested in a claimant / person interested against reliance being placed by the Collector on a particular material during enquiry in terms of section 11 of the Act. That being the legal position a writ cannot lie to command the Collector to consider or not to consider any material relating to the determination of compensation and rejection of such objection by the Collector is not amenable to extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 6. Writ petition is not maintainable for another reason also. As said above opinion of the Collector is dependant on material. It is simple to understand that with a view to arrive at a correct valuation of the property, the Collector has to collect the material. He may call for reports from any person, persons, agencies, organizations or experts. He may seek clarification as many times as would be necessary. All these reports and clarifications are part of the process of evaluation. What material is going to weigh with the Collector in forming the opinion in respect of compensation remains within his knowledge till award is made which is the only stage when material that is relied upon by the Collector can become public, therefore until award Is made, writ petition is not maintainable, being premature. ” 33 24. He further argues that the Explanation Section 26 of the Act would apply to the judgment in the case of Commissioner Kerala t/s. Plantation Corporation wherein it is observed as under; contained under entire section. He relies of Agricultural Income Tax, of Kerala Limited, Kottayam^^ on a When an Explanation or Proviso ivas to apply to any clause or limb alone of Section 5, the legislature has chosen to one incorporate it even in the very Section 5 below the specific or particular clause which it ivas meant to explain or except as in clause (c) or (I) and (n). The fact that instead of doing so the Explanation 2 has been incorporated at the end of Section Explanation 1, which also 5 along side use the words “for the purpose of this section..," the intention of the legislature must be considered to have been made certain, positive and unambiguous, leaving no room or scope whatsoever for having recourse to either internal or external aids for interpretation or construction of the said provision. ” And the decision in the case of M/s. APHALI Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others^^ wherein it is observed as under: It is true that the orthodox function explanation is to explain the meaning and effect of the main provision to which it is an explanation and to clear of an up any doubt or ambiguity in it, but ultimately it is the intention of the legislature which is paramount and mere use of a label cannot 18 (2001) 1 see 207 (1989) 4 see 378 19 34 control or deflect such intention. In all these matters courts have to ifnd out the true intention of the Legislature. In D.G. Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, this Court said that legislature has different ways of expressing itself and in the last analysis the words used alone are repository of legislative intent and that if necessary an Explanation must be construed according to its plain language and 'not on any a priori consideration'. 25. On maintainability of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the respondents refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Vakacharla Veeraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others^^, wherein it is observed as under: “39. In view of catena of perspective pronouncements, the petitioner must plead and prove that legal right existed either statutory or constitutional right and it is infringed or invaded or threatened to infringe or invade by the respondents. But, the bald allegations made in the affidavit without demonstrating the existence of any right and its infringement or its invasion or threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents are not sufficient. In the absence of establishing the existence of right, its infringement or invasion or threatened infringement or invasion, the petitioner is not entitled to claim writ of mandamus. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court and reiterated by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the judgment referred supra, the petitioner must plead and prove that a legal right 20 (2021) 4 ALT 416 35 possessed by him is violated or infringed or threatened to be infringed to obtain a relief of writ of mandamus. 40. Writ of Mandamus can be granted only against the State and its instrumentalities when a demand made by private individuals to do or not to do an act or thing by the State or its instrumentalities and denied the same by the authorities. ” 26. The learned Special Government Pleader, reiterating his submissions contends that the writ petition is not maintainable in as much as the award has not yet been passed and is at the enquiry stage; when the petitioners were asked to appear in the award enquiry, they filed the present writ petition. After the award is passed, the petitioners could invoke the alternative remedy, as provided under Section 64 of the Act. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a 27. perusal of the counter affidavit reflects that the respondents have made up their mind' in determining the market value. Since the order passed by the Collector/RDO is nullity, the petitioners need not wait till passing of final orders and wait till the appellate/reference remedy stage is reached and concluded. And the remedy provided under Section 64 of the Act is not an effective He relies on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Arun Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others^\ 74. A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an Authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one remedy. on 21 (2007) 1 see 732 36 existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act depends. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court, authority or officer cannot act. If a Court or authority wrongly assumes the existence of such fact, the order can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming existence of such jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess. 76. The existence of jurisdictional fact is thus sine qua non or condition precedent for the exercise of power by a court of limited jurisdiction. 84. From the above decisions, it is clear that existence of jurisdictional fact' is sine qua non for the exercise of power. If the jurisdictional fact exists, the authority can proceed with the case and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Once the authority has jurisdiction in the matter on existence of jurisdictional fact', it can decide the 'fact in issue' or 'adjudicatory fact'. A wrong decision on 'fact in issue' or on 'adjudicatory fact' would not make the decision of the authority without jurisdiction or vulnerable provided essential or fundamental fact as to existence ofjurisdiction is present Carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of all the parties, perused the record and gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels. 28. 29. The main issue that falls for consideration in the case is; 37 % i) Whether the market value of the property determined in the case, is in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 26 of the Act? 30. Before the above issue is adverted to, the preliminary objection of respondents on the maintainability of the writ petition in the light of alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act, further, whether the writ petition is premature? is to be answered. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the relevant Section 64 and Section 69 of the Act, which reads as follows: “Sec.64. Reference to Authority - “(1) Any person interested who has not award may, by written application to the Collector, that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a pehod of thirty days." 31. provisions of accepted the require the 38 Sec. 69. Determination of Award by Authority - "(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired including the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements, the Authority shall take into consideration whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out under section 26 to section 30 and the provisions under Chapter V of this Act. (2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under section 11 in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.-ln computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. (3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of one hundred per cent over the total compensation amount. ” From the above, it can be deduced that Reference to the Authority 32. under Section 64 of the Act, is, for his determination of inter alia, the objection to the amount of compensation, etc. The provisions of Section 69 of the Act, dealing with determination of compensation by the Authority, specifies that the Authority, while dealing with the Reference in deciding the compensation to be awarded, can consider whether or not the Collector has followed the 39 parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 and the provisions of Chapter V of the Act. Meaning thereby, the Authority on the matter being referred to it under Section 64 of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation can examine if the collector had followed the parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 of the Act. 33. Here it is very relevant, to note that if the Collector falls to determine the market value In terms of Section 26 of the Act, the provisions of the Act silent regarding the Authority’s jurisdiction in such cases. The provisions of Sections 69 and 70 do not explicitly state that the Authority would assume the jurisdiction of the Collector, in determining the market value under Section 26 of the Act, if the Collector fails to follow the mandate of Section 26. are 34. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, does not provide that the person seeking Reference, can request the Authority, for determination of the market value in the manner provided Section 26 of the Act, if the Collector fails to act in accordance with Section 26 of the Act. 35. Section 28 of the Act deals with the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determination of amount of compensation to be awarded under the Act. Which provides that the Collector while passing the award has to take into consideration the market value as determined under Section 26 of the Act. Thus it is clear that, it is very essential that for determination of compensation payable under Section 27 of the Act, it is a sine qua non that the determination 40 of market value under Section 26 of the Act, is mandatory, and the same should be arrived at, before passing of the award proceedings. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the mandate of 36. Section 26 of the Act has not been followed by the respondents while determining the market value. It would be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 26 (1) and 27 of the Act, which reads as follows; Section 26: Determination of market value of land by Collector: (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:- (a)the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b)the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c)consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section II. Section 27: Determination of amount of compensation: 27. The Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total s. 41 amount of compensation to be paid to the land (whose land has been acquired) by including all assets attached to the land. ” owner 37. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act, dealing with the determination of the market value of the property are unambiguous. It provides for a detailed mechanism for determination of market value. The Collector not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, in the manner provided under Section 26 of the Act. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners the issued by the respondent on 20.11.2019, requiring the petitioners to appear on 14.12.2020, appears to have been issued merely as a formality. The said notice cannot in real sense be said to be in compliance to the principles of natural justice. The Collector/RDO has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and applied the discretion which is not conferred on him, thereby exceeded his Jurisdiction in determining the market value by discounting a particular method (Section 26 (1) (a) of the Act) for arriving at market value. did notice 38. Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons and placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts, referred supra, in the facts of the case, the alternative remedy provided under the Act is not an effective alternative remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. Thus, the preliminary issue is answered against the respondents. 42 39. Thus, it takes me to the adjudication of the main issue, which is whether the provisions of Section 26 of the Act are mandatory and whether the same has been complied with. The opening words of Section 26 of the Act states that “in determining the market value, the Collector shall follow the Criterion”. From the said words, legislature intent can be known that it is mandatory to follow the procedure provided under the provision. Depriving someone of his/her property without paying adequate compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act reflects the arbitrary attitude of the respondents. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act are clear and unambiguous, conveying a definite and specific mandate. The framework of the Section provides a comprehensive methodology for determining market value. 40. The “discounting” method adopted by the respondents is not in accordance with the statute. The Collector can “discount” a particular document if it does not reflect actual prevailing market value. Whereas in the facts of the case, the Collector/RDO discounted the provisions of Section 26(1 )(a) of the Act, since according to him, it is not showing correct valuation. It is to be noted that the market value under the provisions of Section 26(1 )(a) of the Act is the one fixed for the purpose of stamp duty for registration of sale deeds. agreements to sell etc. The market values of the properties for the purpose of stamp duty, for registration of the document are determined by following the procedure under the provisions of Stamps Act, 1899. The values thus 43 determined by the authorities, constituted under the relevant enactment, discounted by the Collector, which is in gross derogation of the provisions of the Act. The statute mandates that after arriving at the figures as mentioned under clauses ‘a’ to ‘c’ of Section 26(1) of the Act, either of the three values whichever is higher should be taken into consideration. In that context, the words “or” used therein only connotes, that one can take into consideration any of the three values, but ultimately the value so adopted should be highest of the three. Thus the provisions no where confers any discretion to the authority to adopt whimsical procedures. From the proceedings dated 28.09.2020 and 04.11.2020, it could be gathered that the officers have made up their mind in fixation of market value, without providing any opportunity to the petitioners, which in my view is not in accordance with the statute. was In view of the same, the order of the 3'^'^ respondent dated 28.09.2020 and the proceedings of the respondent dated 04.11.2020 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector to determine the market value in terms of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. After determination of the market value, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and pass the award. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of the receipt of the order, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. 41. 44 42. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR W 9: //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA (For Her Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Government of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer -cum -Dist. Collector Prakasham District, At Ongole. LAO, for New Broad Gage Railway Lane-Between and SriKalahasthi. District Collector Prakasham 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum- Sub collector, Kandukuru, Prakasham District 4. The South Central Railways, Rep by its General Manmager Rail Nilayam Secunderabad 5. The Joint Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. RR5 is impleaded as per the order of this court dt 26/12/2022 vide order passed 02/2022 6. One CC to Sri. P V A Padmanabham Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. Jupudi V K Yagnadutt Central Government [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court Of Andhra 9. Two CCs to GP For Land Acquisition, High Court Of Andhra [OUT] Nadikudi in lA Counsel Pradesh. [OUT] Pradesh. 10. 9 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of Inida, Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, A.P Advocates’ Association Buildings, Amaravathi. Three CD Copies 11. Ministry of Law, Justice and 12. Library, High Court 13. GSC 1 HIGH COURT DATED:10/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.23259 of 2020 ANDfi^ g 13 MAR 2025 CO ^ . Current oeciion ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS