IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Ranganathan and U. Durga Prasad Rao, JJ.
Kondakandla Yadaiah and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.M.P. No. 30910 of 2016 in W.P. No. 25036 of 2016
Decided On : 05-01-2017
Constitution of India - Article 162 or Article 298, 299, 226, 14, 154, 53, 298, 73, 162, 298, 258, 245 and 246., 19(i)(g), 21 and 300-A - State Government claims to protect the interests of the land owners by offering them a compensation higher than their entitlement under which seek to provide certain welfare measures to such of those families whose only means of livelihood would be affected by the procurement of land adequately safeguard the statutory rights conferred on these marginalised sections of society under the Act and can these statutory rights conferred on these deprived Sections either be waived by them or circumvented by the State Government in the exercise of its executive power either under Article or Article of the Constitution - Respondents to follow and implement the provisions of the Act and not to resort to any negotiation process or forcible dispossession or acquisition – Petitioners in this batch of Petitions are either land owners or assignees of land or other affected persons living in villages which will be submerged on construction of several irrigation projects - Collectors to acquire lands, in strips or pockets which become critical for proper viability of the Project and to bring the envisaged components of the Project to their logical deliverable stage in any irrigation project or a road work through negotiated consent - Government after examining the issue in detail – Held, This is the rule of law which regulates the operation of organs of Government functioning under a Constitution - Bargaining power of the State and the citizen is unequal - Any unjust condition thrust upon the petitioners by the State in such matters would attract the wrath of Section of the Indian Contract Act. Equity and good conscience should be at the core of all governmental functions - Every executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have the sanction of law - Contracts entered into by the State under prima-facie, violate Section of the Indian Contract Act - While the question whether such of these contracts which are already made are void ab-initio, can only be answered on the Writ Petitions being finally heard we are satisfied that the State Government should not be permitted, hereinafter, to enter into contracts to purchase lands for construction of irrigation projects without complying with the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions more particularly those stipulated under the Second and Third Schedules thereto - Marginalized sections of society who are dependent upon these lands of the land owners for their survival, of the rights conferred on them by the Act more particularly those under Schedules II and III thereof. Pending disposal of these Writ Petitions the State Government shall, henceforth, not purchase lands under for the public purpose of construction of irrigation projects - It is made clear that this Order shall not preclude the respondents from acquiring lands complying with the conditions stipulated therein for rehabilitation and resettlement of all the affected families - W.P.M. Ps. are, accordingly disposed.
1. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act" for short), confers rights not only on those whose lands, and other immovable property, is to be acquired by the State, but also on families which do not own land, but one of whose members is an agricultural labourer, an agricultural tenant, an artisan or a share-cropper whose primary source of livelihood is adversely affected by the acquisition of land. Certain rights are also conferred by the 2013 Act on the Scheduled Tribes, other traditional forest dwellers who have lost their forest rights, gatherers of forest produce, hunters, fisher-folk and boatsmen, and on those who have been assigned lands by the State Government. While G.O. Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015 claims to protect the interests of the land owners by offering them a compensation higher than their entitlement under the 2013 Act, do G.O. Ms. No. 190 dated 10.08.2016 and G.O. Ms. No. 191 dated 15.08.2016, which seek to provide certain welfare measures to such of those families whose only means of livelihood would be affected by the procurement of land under G.O. Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015, adequately safeguard the statutory rights, conferred on these marginalised sections of society, under the 2013 Act; and can these statutory rights, conferred on these deprived Sections, either be waived by them or circumvented by the State Government in the exercise of its executive power either under Article 162 or Article 298 of the Constitution?
2. In these batch of Writ Petitions, wherein the present interlocutory applications were filed, the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 75 dated 05.06.2015 and G.O. Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015, along with its amendment in G.O. Ms. No. 190 dated 07.10.2015 and G.O. Ms. No. 214 dated 28.11.2015, are questioned as ultra vires the 2013 Act, and a consequential direction is sought to the respondents to follow and implement the provisions of the 2013 Act, and not to resort to any negotiation process or forcible dispossession or acquisition. The petitioners, in this batch of Writ Petitions, are either land owners or assignees of land or other affected persons living in villages which will be submerged on construction of several irrigation projects by the State. In W.P. No. 25036 of 2016, several of the petitioners are agricultural labourers, village artisans and landless poor who are dependent, on the lands purchased by the State under G.O. Ms. No. 123 dated 30.07.2015, for their livelihood.
3. The Government of Telangana issued G.O. Ms. No. 75 Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 05.06.2015 formulating a policy called "The Telangana State Policy for Acquisition of Land through Agreement under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013". G.O. Ms. No. 75 dated 05.06.2015 refers to the Director, R & R, and Land Acquisition I & CAD Department having submitted proposals to the Government on 18.02.2015 for formulation of a policy to guide and facilitate district collectors to acquire lands, in strips or pockets, which become critical for proper viability of the Project; and to bring the envisaged components of the Project to their logical deliverable stage in any irrigation project, or a road work by the R & B, and land for R & R Centres, through negotiated consent. The Government, after examining the issue in detail, constituted a three member committee vide Memo dated 16.05.2015 and directed them to submit a report for formulation of a policy under Section 108 of the 2013 Act, giving a proper preamble and to frame laws to provide for consent awards, duly defining the parameters mentioned therein. The Committee submitted its report on 21.05.2015 preparing a draft policy called the Telangana State Policy for Acquisition of Land through Agreement under
Amalgamated Electricity Co. v. Ajmer Municipality
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Ramdev Tobacco Company
Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. The Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan
B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore
Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India
B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P.
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-op. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.
Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. (1975) 1 SCC 70 : AIR 1975 SC 266
G.D. Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Hindustan Lever v. State of Maharashtra
Hindustan Times v. State of U.P.
H. Anraj v. State of Maharashtra
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre
Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha v. Narayanamma
Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann
Kapila Hingorani (I) v. State of Bihar
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram
Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam
Municipal Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn.
Ms. Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA
Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P.
Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India
Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India
Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta
Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India
Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India
Pulin Behari Lal v. Mahadeb Dutta
Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar
Ramchand Jagdish Chand v. Union of India
Rai Sahib Ram Jawava Kapur v. State of Punjab
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal
Sukhu Ram Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa
Senior Supdt. of Post Offices v. Izhar Hussain
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
Scindia Employees’ Union v. State of Maharashtra
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi
State of Rajasthan v. Vatan Medical and General Store
State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.
Shri Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar
State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
Tribhuwan Parkash Nair v. Union of India
V. Balasubramaniam v. T.N. Housing Board
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.