JUDGMENT
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, the A.P. State Level Negotiations Committee, the District Negotiations Committee, Kurnool, the Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Collector, Srisailam Right Branch Canal and the Convenor and Special Deputy Collector. Land Acquisition, Srisailam Right Branch Canal, the appellants 1 to 5 have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.7.2001 made in W.P.No. 3521 of 2001.
2. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition questioning the validity of Memo No. 6916/ ALM-3/2000-1, dated 6.1.2000 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh declining to negotiate the claim of the petitioners for compensation under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (State Level Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the Rules’) and directing the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Srisailam Right Branch Canal who is the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to determine the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act.
3. The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: The petitioners filed an application under the rules before the District Negotiations Committee, Kurnool, the 3rd appellant herein to negotiate and determine the compensation payable to them in respect of the land acquired by the Government. The State District Level Committee after following the prescribed procedure came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at a rate which will be more than 50% of the total compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and since under the rules, the District Level Committee is not competent to determine the compensation in excess of 50% of the total compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, it referred the claim of the petitioners to the State Level Committee in terms of the rules. When the reference was received from the District Level Committee, at the Government level, as reflected in the counter-affidavit, it seems that the matter was placed before the Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad who is the Convenor of the State Level Committee for his opinion and in terms of the opinion handed down by him, the impugned endorsement came to be issued by the Government.
4. Both in terms of the procedure adopted by the Government and in terms of the substantive provisions contained in Rule 5, the impugned order of the Government cannot be sustained. In the first place, the endorsement issued by the Government which is impugned in the writ petition is one without any authority of law. In terms of the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the Rules, on receipt of the reference from the District Level Committee, the Chief Commissioner being the Convenor of the State Level Committee ought to have taken necessary steps as contemplated in Sub-rules (1) to (4). The power conferred on
the State Level Committee under the Rules is required to be exercised by the Committee as a whole and the action of the Chief Commissioner in deciding the fate of the reference at his level and on his own should be condemned as ultra vires the Rules, Secondly, we find considerable force in the contention of Sri Sail Reddy, learned senior Counsel that when a reference is made under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, the State Level Committee is left with no discretion but to determine the claims for compensation, after going through the procedure envisaged under the Rules. The phrase ‘the State Committee shall determine the claims for compensation and total benefits payable under the Act’ occurring in Rule 5 is a key phrase in deciding whether the power conferred upon the State Committee to determine the claims for compensation is a discretionary one or not. Having regard to the scheme of the Rules and in the context of the recommendations and the reference made by the District Level Committee, the State Committee ought to have decided the reference on merits without rejecting the reference in limine without going into the merits of the claim and it ought not to have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act. Further, it is not forthcoming from the impugned endorsement or otherwise as to what weighed with the Chief Commissioner not to entertain the reference. Since we are of the opinion that under the Rules, the State Level Committee is bound to decide the reference made by the District Level Committee, no exception can be taken to the direction issued by the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Although the learned single Judge had directed the State Committee to dispose of the reference within a period of three
months, by virtue of the interim order passed by the Division Bench that direction was not given effect by the State Committee. Since we have dismissed the writ appeal, we direct the State Committee to dispose of the reference relating to the claims of the petitioners and other land owners within a period of three months positively from the date of receipt of this order. We, however, clarify that if the Land Acquisition Officer has already passed awards determining compensation payable to the other land owners who have not joined the petitioners in these writ proceedings, there is no need for the State Committee to again negotiate and determine the compensation with regard to such owners.