JUDGMENT
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. This Writ petition has been filed seeking for writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to stop all the excavation works in the petitioners’ lands shown in the schedule to the writ petition or in the alternative to pay forthwith 80% of the compensation for the value of the lands inclusive of standing crop of the land with interest at 18% from 25-12-1991 the date on which possession of the lands was taken over and crops were bulldozed.
2. I ordered notice before admission on 3-3-1992. Thereafter the respondents represented by the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition have filed counters and produced the records. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for the alternative relief sought for in the writ petition.
3. The petitioners who are ryots having lands of an extent of about Ac. 49.00 in S. Nos. 34, 36 etc., at Venkatapuram Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District, complain that the possession of the lands were taken over for the purpose of excavation of S.R.B.C. main canal without making an award and without payment of compensation as required by Section 17(3) and (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The case of the petitioners is that there was standing crop on the land viz., Tobacco, Jowar, Redgram etc., in the month of December, 1991 and for the purpose of urgent execution of work the contractor bulldozed the lands along with the standing crop from 25-12-1991 onwards. However, the compensation either for the crops or for the lands had not been paid. It is submitted that at the instance of the second respondent, the Agricultural Officer (T & V) Bhanumukkala assessed the value of the crop and sent up his report on 16-12-1991, but no steps have been taken to reimburse the value of the standing crops damaged.
4. In the counter affidavit by first respondent (Land Acquisition Officer) it is admitted that the advance possession of the lands along with standing dry crops was taken and the lands handed over to the S.R.B.C. Engineering officials on 28-12-1991. It is also averred that the Deputy Executive Engineer (Second respondent) stated that the crop was not required and that the value of the crop was to be deducted, if the ryots cut and take away the crop themselves before the award is passed. To this effect there is an end or segment made in the certificate dated 28-12-1992 and the awardees have received Section 12(2) notices and the land compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Officer maintained that as per the report of the Deputy Executive Engineer, the standing crop was actually harvested by the writ petitioners themselves and hence the crop value was not taken into account, while passing the award. It is also submitted that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the market value fixed they can seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Second respondent the allegation that the contractor’s man started bulldozing the lands from 25-12-1991 denied. It is asserted that no crop was damaged by bulldozing as the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri E. Ayyappu Reddy has relied upon Sub-section (3) & (3-A) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and contended that the petitioners are entitled at the time of taking possession of the land, 80% of the estimated compensation for lands acquired and the full value of the standing crops. The averments in the counter that the standing crop has been harvested by the petitioners has been seriously challenged. The learned Government Pleader: has apart from producing the record invited my attention particularly to a statement styled as ‘panchayatnama’ Supervisors of the Contractor, on 22-1-1992 The learned Government pleader submitted that if that if the petitioners are aggrieved the proper course is to move the Civil Court by way of Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. On the basis of these rival submissions, the first and foremost question is whether I should issue a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing payment of compensation for the standing crop in the face of the remedy available to the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As far as the compensation for the lands is concerned, the issue is merely academic for the reason that the award has already been passed fixing the market value of the land acquired and disbursing the compensation to the land owners or to the persons interested in the land. If the petitioners are aggrieved against the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, they can still move the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As per as the value of the standing crop is concerned though the petitioners have the same remedy under Section 18 of the Act, in my view, different considerations do arise. The statutory duty to of offer compensation or the standing crops at the time of taking possession of the lands is imposed on the Collector by Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. If it is not offered and paid it would amount to clear breach of statutory, duty and the deprivation of the petitioners’ right to compensation which amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. If such a flagrant breach of statutory duty resulting in the violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners come to the notice of this Court this Court, shall not hesitate to intervene and render instant justice to the aggrieved parties. The existence of remedy under Section 18 cannot be pleaded in defence by the State in order to defeat the immediate right of the land-holders to receive compensation. I would, therefore, go into, the question whether it is a fit case to direct payment of compensation for the standing crop without being fettered by the consideration that the remedy under Section 18 is also available to the petitioners.
8. The record of the case reveals that a letter dt. 19-12-91 was addressed by the Superintending Engineer, S.R.B.C., Circle No. 2, Nandyal to the Sub-Collector, (Land Acquisition) Srisailam Project stating that the works of S.R.B.C., have come to standstill in the absence of take over of lands required for the purpose of executing the works. The Sub-Collector was requested to take immediate steps to hand over the lands in Venkatapuram and Nandavaram Villages. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Collector (L.A) S.R.B.C., Nandyal (first respondent) tried to persuade the land owners to give possession of the land, compensation amount in advance. On 28-12-1991 the possession of the lands was handed over with crops by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Deputy Executive Engineer, S.R.B.C., Sub-Division No. 1. As already noticed, the possession was taken over by the Engineering Department with an endorsement that the compensation need not be paid for crops if the land owners out and take away the crops. On 10-1-1992 the Deputy Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer stating that the Contractor has commenced the work in the fields of Venkatapuram from 25-12-1991 “after dozing the crop’s from K.M. 87 onwards”. It is then stated in the letter that approximately an extent of 20 hectares is required for executing the work during the month January, 1992. He, therefore, requested the Executive Engineer to intimate the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) for taking advance possession of the lands of Venkatapuram village by paying crop compensation. Though the language of this letter is some what ambiguous, it is fairly clear that what the Deputy Executive Engineer wanted to convey was that the Contractor had already started dozing operations from KM 87 onwards and that he needs actual possession of about 20 hectares for continuing the work upto the end of January, 1992. He also requested for payment of crop compensation for the lands in question. In the letter dated 9-1-1992, addressed by the Special Deputy Collector to the Executive Engineer, it was mentioned that the standing crop was likely to be harvested before the month end, that in the course of discussions with the Superintending Engineer and the Contractor it was informed that an extent of about 20 acres (not hectares) was required by the Contractor to continue the work of removal of earth. The Special Deputy collector, therefore, requested the Executive Engineer “to identify lands which are required for the removal of earth till the month end by which time the standing crop in the remaining area will be harvested and taken away by the ryots.” In this letter the actual extent required for execution of work before the end of the month was estimated as 20 acres, though in the Deputy Executive Engineer’s letter the extent of land is mentioned as 20 hectares. The idea was to take over physical possession of the land to the extent of atleast 20 acres by tendering the crop compensation and to leave the remaining block of lands in the physical possession of the land owners concerned so that they may harvest the crops by the time the work is completed in the first block of 20 acres.
9. The next communication of immediate relevance to the case is the letter addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer on 15-2-1992. In this letter the Deputy Executive Engineer while reiterating that the Contractor will commence the dozing work from 87-33 K.M., after the possession was handed over to the Contractor on 28-12-1991, reported further;
“Subsequently, during the inspection I came to know that the following crops were taken away by ryots as reported by the contractor’s men who are working at the site”
He, therefore, requested the Executive Engineer to intimate the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) to pay only land compensation to the land owners. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer addressed a letter on 28.2.1992 to the Special Deputy Collector. The award was passed on the very next day i.e., on 29.2.1992 awarding only compensation in respect of the land acquired.
10. On the basis of the correspondence referred to above, the reasonable inference that could be drawn is that the work was executed by the Contractor by employing bulldozers soon after the possession of the lands was taken over on 28-12-1991. Obviously, certain crops should have been damaged in that process. At the same time, it is not possible to say on the basis of the available material on record, that the Contractor resorted to bulldozing the entire extent of land. The possibility of removal of a part of the standing crop which was ready for harvesting by the end of January, 1992 (as reported by the Land Acquisition Officer) cannot be ruled out.
11. Neither the panchayatnama signed by the contractor’s men nor the Deputy Executive Engineer’s letter dated 15-2-1992 gives out any details about the harvesting and removal of the standing crops. Though the Deputy Executive Engineer used the words “the following crops were taken away” the record does not disclose that he gave any further details of the lands from which the standing crop was removed. Though these deficiencies, as revealed from the. record, throw a doubt on the version of the respondents, at the same time the petitioners’ version cannot be taken to be wholly correct. According to the petitioners the bulldozing operations commenced from 25-12-1991 onwards. But in the statement given before the Land Acquisition Officer on 28-12-1991, most of the petitioners referred to the fact that crop was in existence on the date of enquiry i.e., 28-12-1991. If so, the petitioners’ version that the possession was taken over and the crops damaged on and from 25-12-1991 cannot be correct Obviously the petitioners took advantage of the letter of the Deputy Executive Engineer dated 10-1-1992 in which he stated that the contractor was commencing the work from 25-12-1991 onwards after dozing the crops’. In the same letter the Deputy Executive Engineer was pleading for immediate delivery of possession of about 20 hectares in Venkatapuram village for the purpose of executing work in the month of January, 1992. If the bulldozing operations had already commenced from 25-12-1991 onwards, it is inexplicable as to how, fifteen days later, he would ask for immediate delivery of possession of 20 hectares (maybe 20 acres) for the purpose of executing the work during the month of January, 1992. Thus, not must of sanctity could be attached to the date 25-12-1991 mentioned in the letter dated 10-1-1992 addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer – which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel.
12. On the basis of the material on record, prima facie, I am inclined to think that bulldozing operations would have covered a substantial extent of the land in question, as a result of which standing crop could have been damaged. At the same time, as I observed earlier, it is not possible to identify the actual land and the extent thereof which was subjected to bulldozing operations unless evidence is taken. In this state of affairs, I am not in a position to give a final finding as to the extent of damage caused to the standing crop over the block of land-in-question, though I am fully convinced that standing crops in a portion of the land were damaged by bulldozing While it is appropriate that the petitioners should seek reference to the Civil Court not only with regard to land value but also with regard to the value of the crop damaged, at the same time, I feel that he petitioners should not be driven to the necessity of getting an adjudication from the Civil Court in order to realise the value of the standing crop in terms of the right conferred on them by Section 17(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, I feel that the facts of the case warrant a just and equitable order balancing the interests of both sides. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
i) If the petitioners filed applications within me prescribed time-limit for reference, the same shall be referred to the Civil Court by the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order;
ii) fifty percent of the crop value as already assessed by the Agricultural Department shall be deposited by the first respondent in the Civil Court to the credit of the pending reference cases within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit, the petitioners can withdraw the same subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the concerned Civil Court. If any of the petitioners are not willing to furnish the security, the amount deposited shall be invested by the lower Court in a Bank for such period as it deems fit;
iii) on receipt of references, the Civil court shall endeavour to dispose of the O.Ps. expeditiously;
iv) nothing said herein shall fetter the Civil Court from giving its own findings with regard to the award of crop value on the basis of the evidence adduced in the O.Ps.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that once the possession was taken over, the liability to pay compensation under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act arises and it is immaterial whether the crop was removed by the petitioners subsequently or not. This legal proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners may or may not be right. That question can no doubt be decided by the Civil Court. But, for the purpose of exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would be legitimate to consider whether in fact the petitioners had appropriated the benefit of standing crop. If they did, it would not be in the fitness of things to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners even assuming that they do have a legal right to claim compensation for the crop. Hence I am not prepared to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and that is the reason why I have made a prima facie probe into the question whether the petitioners had taken away the standing crop wholly or in part and as a result of the prima fade view taken by me that atleast part of the standing crop was damaged, I have directed the deposit of half the value of crop, while at the same time leaving the matter to be decided finally by the Civil Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act
14. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed and disposed of in terms of the directions set out above. No costs. Government pleader’s fee Rs. 300/-.