IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Dasari Nagamani and Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary Revenue Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 182/2016
Decided On : 18-06-2024
(A) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus against the payment of compensation to the 7th respondent exclusively, claiming joint ownership of the land. The court found that the matter involved disputed questions of fact that should be resolved by the appropriate authority under the Act. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The court reiterated that it would not entertain writ petitions where an effective alternative remedy exists, especially in cases involving disputed facts. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, sisters of the 7th respondent, claimed entitlement to compensation for land acquired for the Polavaram Project, asserting joint ownership, while the 7th respondent claimed exclusive rights based on a partition.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to refer the dispute to the appropriate authority for adjudication under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land was jointly owned or exclusively owned by the 7th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existence of disputed facts necessitated referral to the appropriate authority rather than adjudication by the High Court.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners prays for writ of mandamus declaring the action of official respondents 3 and 4 in proposing to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.13,23,877/- to the unofficial respondent No. 7 exclusively instead of paying only 1/6th share therein to her in respect of the acquired land in an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 of Dandangi Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of The Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short "Act 30 of 2013"] and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to pay compensation till the title dispute determined under the Act.
2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus:
(b) While so, in the year 2012 the Government for the purpose of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project acquired 88.710 hectares of land including the aforesaid land of the petitioners and 7th respondent by following the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. In the Form No.IX, the names of the petitioners and 7th respondent were shown as claimants for Ac. 7.56 cents and Ac. 1.51 cents covered by survey Nos. 158 and 187/4. After passing of the award, the petitioners and 7th respondent approached the 4th respondent for payment of compensation and accordingly with respect to the land in an extent of Ac.7.56 cents covered by Sy.No.158, all the six sisters were paid compensation amount of Rs.66,28,152 @ Rs.11,04.692/- per head. However the remaining extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 is concerned, the Acquisition Authorities informed that the compensation amount will be paid to the rightful owners after the clearance of the title disputes among the family members and accordingly notice dated 14.05.2015 U/s 37[2] Rule 26 of the Act 30 of 2013 was issued by the authorities to the petitioners and 7th respondents. Pursuant to it, the petitioners submitted a representation to respondents 3 and 4 requesting to pay the compensation to all the sharers equally. When there was no response, the petitioners again sent a representation dated 26.10.2015 to the authorities ether to pay compensation equally to the 6 sisters or refer the matter to the competent authorities U/s 64 of Act 30 of 2013 to resolve the dispute. While the matter stood, on enquiry the petitioners came to know that the 4th respondent/LAO was proposing to pay the compensation amount to the 7th respondent and in fact, prepared a bill dated 19.12.2015 and directed the 8th respondent to pay the entire compensation to the 7th respondent exclusively. Hence the writ petitioners got issued legal notice dated 14.12.2015 to the 4th 4th respondent but there was no response.
Hence the writ petition.
3. 4th respondent filed counter.
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 INSC 1277 : (2010) 2 SCC 114
Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 2010 INSC 763 : (2010) 14 SCC 38
The High Court will not entertain writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact when an effective alternative remedy exists under the relevant Act.
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment for land acquisition must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction, when an alternative remedy exists.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
Landowners entitled to RFCTLARR 2013 compensation for non-disbursed 1980s award and utilized unacquired land.
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.