Court holds that non-registration or inability to trace Section 18 applications does not absolve authorities from statutory duty; adverse inference drawn against state for failure to rebut claims.
In a significant judgment dated July 10, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi) upheld the right of landowners to seek enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even when official records failed to show receipt of their applications. The court directed the state authorities to refer the petitioners’ claims to the competent civil court under Section 18 of the Act, rejecting the state’s contention that no applications were filed or traceable in official records.
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings related to the Somasila reservoir project, where agricultural lands owned by the respondents (Rendla Subba Reddy and others) were acquired by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award dated February 6, 1984, granted compensation to the landowners, which they accepted under protest, claiming it was inadequate.
Subsequently, the respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of their compensation enhancement claims to a competent civil court. However, the state authorities allegedly failed to act on these applications or forward them to the court, prompting the landowners to file writ petitions seeking a direction for such reference.
The state, contesting the petition, argued that no such applications were found in official records or registered in their office, and the delay of nearly 29 years in filing the writ petition was unreasonable. They also filed a review petition on the same grounds, which was dismissed by the court.
Crucially, the landowners produced documentary evidence, including a written application dated April 10, 1994, purportedly filed through their counsel and received by the District Collector’s office. The High Court noted that despite the court’s order dated January 29, 2025, directing the state to file a counter-affidavit to rebut these claims, no such counter was filed. Drawing on the Supreme Court precedent in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988), the court held that failure to file a counter-affidavit amounts to an admission of the facts stated in the writ petition.
The court emphasized that the state authorities’ inaction, including failure to register or trace the application, did not relieve them from their statutory obligation to act upon a validly filed Section 18 application. It further held that the writ court was justified in directing the District Collector to make the reference to the civil court for adjudication without considering the delay in filing the application.
Additionally, the court directed the civil court to decide the issue of whether the petitioners had signed the consent forms related to the acquisition, as this was a factual matter requiring determination alongside the compensation dispute.
The High Court dismissed the state’s writ appeals challenging the orders and allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, underscoring that the petitioners’ right to seek enhanced compensation could not be defeated by procedural lapses or record-keeping failures by the authorities.
This ruling reinforces the principle that landowners are entitled to due process and statutory remedies under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that state authorities must diligently discharge their duties in facilitating such claims. It also clarifies that courts can draw adverse inferences against government bodies that fail to contest factual assertions through proper affidavits.
Bottom Line:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Filing of application for reference under Section 18 - Non-registration or inability to trace application in official records does not absolve authorities from their obligation to act upon a validly filed application.
Statutory provision(s): Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18; Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rendla Subba Reddy, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2949896
