Skip to content


Koduru Venkata Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in[1988]63CompCas376(AP)
ActsAndhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973; Land Acquisition Act; Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976; Constitution of India - Article 31A(1)
AppellantKoduru Venkata Reddy
RespondentLand Acquisition Officer
Excerpt:
.....payment of compensation - andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agriculture holding) act, 1973, land acquisition act, 1894, section 3 (4) of land acquisition (andhra pradesh amendment) act, 1976 and article 31 a (1) of constitution of india - claim of appellant is that he holds land less than ceiling area to which he is entitled under act of 1973 - part of land has been acquired under provisions of act of 1894 read with act of 1976 - compensation for land acquired was permitted in installments - section 3 (4) which provides payment of compensation in installments is violative of fundamental rights - it works out to be less than market rate - held, for acquisition of land of person who is personally cultivating same he is entitled to payment at market rate. - motor vehicles act (59..........holdings) act, 1973. but a part of his holding has been acquired under the provisions of the land acquisition act read with the land acquisition (andhra pradesh amendment) act, 1976, whereby compensation payable for the land acquired is permitted to be paid in instalments. that provision was challenged as unconstitutional in a batch of writ petitions. a full bench of this court in w.p. no. 3353 of 1976 and batch, by judgment dated september 26, 1978, held section 3(4) of the amendment act which provides for payment of compensation in instalments to be violative of fundamental rights. the full bench held that 'payment of compensation in instalments works out to payment of compensation which is less than the market value. section 3(4) of the impugned act of 1976 is unconstitutional.....
Judgment:

Madhava Reddy, Actg. C.J.

1. The claim of the petitioner is that he holds land less than the ceiling area to which he is entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973. But a part of his holding has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act read with the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976, whereby compensation payable for the land acquired is permitted to be paid in instalments. That provision was challenged as unconstitutional in a batch of writ petitions. A Full Bench of this court in W.P. No. 3353 of 1976 and batch, by judgment dated September 26, 1978, held section 3(4) of the Amendment Act which provides for payment of compensation in instalments to be violative of fundamental rights. The Full Bench held that 'Payment of compensation in instalments works out to payment of compensation which is less than the market value. Section 3(4) of the impugned Act of 1976 is unconstitutional to the extent of acquisition of lands which come within the purview of article 31A(1) of the Constitution of India. That is to say, compensation cannot be paid in instalments for lands acquired from a farmer who holds lands below the ceiling limit and personally cultivates them. For acquisition of other lands, however, this inhibition and vice do not exist in section 3(4).'

2. When the matter came up before our learned brother, Kodandaramayya J., he felt a doubt whether, having regard to the fact that the judgment of the Full Bench is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court and the operation of the said Judgment is suspended, the dicta laid down by the Full Bench would be binding on this court and have to be followed, and referred the matter to the Bench. We are of the view that when a judgment of the High Court is the subject-matter of an appeal and the said judgment is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that the judgment cannot be executed or implemented. But, so long as the Full Bench judgment stand, the dicta laid down therein are binding on all courts including single judges and Division Benches of this court. The dicta laid down therein cannot be ignored unless the court after hearing a particular case doubts the correctness of the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be reconsidered. We, however, do not feel any such doubt that in so far as the acquisition of the land of a person, whose holding is less than the ceiling area and who is personally cultivating the same, is concerned, he is entitled to the payment of market value in lump sum. Payment of compensation in instalments is violative of the provisions of article 31A(1) of the Constitution.

3. Following the aforesaid Full Bench decision, we allow the writ petition and direct payment of compensation in lump sum. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150. The compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //