Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 53
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
S.V. BHATT, J.
Devidas R. Bollaki - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1467, 1468, 1469, 1477, 2236 of 2015 & 21621 of 2014
Decided on: 02-03-2015
For the Petitioners:P.V.A. Padmanabham, J. Vijayalakshmi, Koka Satyanarayana Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent: GP for Revenue, K. Vivek Reddy, Standing Counsel For Hyderbad Metro Rail Limited.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –Petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in acquiring a portion of subject properties situated at Nampally, Hyderabad under the provisions of Act 1 of 1894 by paying compensation under Act 1 of 1894, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Section 24(1) of Act 30 of 2013 and consequently pray for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass an award under Section 24(1)(a) of Act 30 of 2013 –Implementing Hyderabad Metro Rail Project under a P.P.P with the State Government/GHMC – Through the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS), rail based mass transit connectivity is made available to ease pressure on the existing roads and MMTS means of transportation in a few corridors of twin cities – subject properties are located – These properties were notified for acquisition under Act 1 of 1894 for road widening in Corridor-I for establishment/construction of MRTS – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is the requisitioning department – Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited/3rd respondent is the implementing/operating agency of the rail project –Held, Court cannot agree with the construction of words “award is made” advanced by the respondents, for such construction deprives to the claimants benefits of fair compensation due to various exigencies – Benefit conferred by Parliament cannot be denied through a restrictive interpretation – No one can be condemned unheard and likewise no right can be stated as affected without communication of the Award – From the above consideration, this Court is of the view that the principle laid down in Kaliyappan’s case (6 supra) is distinguishable and confined to Sections 11 and 11-A of Act 1 of 1894. While interpreting a transitory provision, the said ratio does not assist the respondents file noting cannot be treated as an award made under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1894 as it is not communicated as late – Writ petitions are allowed.
The facts in issue and the prayers in these writ petitions are substantially same and similar.
The issues of law centre round construction/ interpretation of the words “an award under Section 11 (of the Land Acquisition Act) has been made” in Section 24(1)(b) of Act 30 of 2013.
The issues for consideration arise under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act 1 of 1894’) and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act 30 of 2013’)
For convenience, the dates, events and array of parties in W.P.Nos.1467, 1468, 1469 and 1477 of 2015 are referred in detail.
A portion of following properties is the subject matter of acquisition in these writ petitions.
W.P.No.1467 of 2015 5-8-225 /12 & 5-8-225/1 to 11, Nampally, Hyderabad
W.P.No.1469 of 2015 5-8- 230 / 4&5-8-230/3,5,6,7, Nampally, Hyderabad.
W.P. No.1477 of 2015 5-8-230/4/A & Shop Nos.5-8-230/A,B,C 1 & 2, Nampally, Hyderabad.
W.P. No.1468 of 2015 5-4-405 to 408, Nampally, Hyderavbad.
W.P. No.2366 of 2015 5-8-223, Nampally, Hyderabad
W.P. No.21621 of 2014 1-11-251/19/A2/A3 (132 square yards) Bholakpur, Secunderabad
The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in acquiring a portion of subject properties situated at Nampally, Hyderabad under the provisions of Act 1 of 1894 by paying compensation under Act 1 of 1894, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Section 24(1) of Act 30 of 2013 and consequently pray for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass an award under Section 24(1)(a) of Act 30 of 2013.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The 3rd respondent is implementing Hyderabad Metro Rail Project under a P.P.P with the State Government/GHMC. Through the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS), rail based mass transit connectivity is made available to ease pressure on the existing roads and MMTS means of transportation in a few corridors of twin cities. The subject properties are located at Nampally, Hyderabad and Bholakpur, Secunderabad. These properties were notified for acquisition under Act 1 of 1894 for road widening in Corridor-I for establishment/construction of MRTS. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is the requisitioning department. Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited/3rd respondent is the implementing/operating agency of the rail project.
The Special Deputy Collector/ 2nd respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer.
The cause of action for filing the writ petitions is the communication of award dated 23.12.2013 through notice dated 30.12.2014 under Section 12(2) of Act 1 of 1894.
The following dates and events are admitted by parties.
On 25.04.2013, notification under Section 4 (1) of Act 1 of 1894 was issued for acquiring the properties covered by writ petition Nos.1467, 1469 and 1477 of 2015. On 27.04.2013, notice under Section 5-A of Act 1 of 1894 was issued to interested persons in the acquisition proceedings. On 19.07.2013, draft declaration under Section 6 of Act 1 of 1894 was gazetted in Hyderabad District Gazette and on 24.07.2013, the draft declaration was published in the local newspapers. Notices in Form 6 under Sections 9 (1) and 10 and in Form 7 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of Act 1 of 1894 dated 24.07.2013 have been issued calling for claims in award enquiry. The award enquiry was fixed on 07.08.2013. There are no disputes between the parties as regards the events up to the date of issuance of notices under Sections 9 and 10 of Act 1 of 1894. Admittedly, the notice dated 30.12.2014 under Section 12(2) of Act 1 of 1894 is served on 13.01.2015 on petitioners. Through the instant notice, the petitioners have knowledge of award dated 23.12.2013. The controversy, in fact, between the parties is on the very making of award on 23.12.2013 under Act 1 of 1894 and the legal effect of non-communication of award before Act 1 of 1894 is repealed. Secondly, legal effect of notice dated 30.12.2014 under Section 12 (2) of Act 1 of 1894 with the advent of Act 30 of 20
