Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
Seetha Sulochana - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11582 of 2020
Decided On : 13-05-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 11, 11(2) , 19(1) and 15 - Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Notice - Registered sale deed - Pattadar pass book and title deed - Petitioner that she is the owner, possessor and pattadar of agricultural land, admeasuring Acs. 4.29 guntas in Survey No. 98, and Acs. 7.38 guntas in Survey No. 99, situated District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed for a valuable consideration. Pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in her favour - Sandal wood trees, 800 teak trees, 100 guava trees and various other vegetable crops. While so, the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice stating that land belong to petitioner to an extent of Ac. 0.14 guntas in Survey No. 98 and Ac. 0.11 guntas in Survey - petitioner was directed to approach respondent file her objections along with valid documents, and receive the compensation - Petitioner has categorically pointed out that a large extent of Government land is available on western and northern sides of her land, and if canal alignment is taken through said Government land –
Finding of the court : Petitioner with regard to change of alignment of Canal is concerned, except placing a sketch prepared by the petitioner herself, nothing has been placed on record to show that any other alternate Government land is available besides land of petitioner or that the alignment was changed at the behest of some interested party - Even if the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is taken to be true - Alignment of the canal now proposed has only one curve - Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India in a writ petition cannot go into technical aspects with regard to alignment of canal, more particularly, in the absence of any material proof to substantiate the contention of petitioner with regard to change of the alignment of Canal or whether the alignment now sought is correct or not - respondents, apart from filing counter, have also placed on record the material which would clearly establish that they have scrupulously followed mandatory procedure contemplated under the Act. Once it is established that respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under the Act, this Court does not see any merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner - Even for sake of arguments, even if there are any minor lapses in the procedure for acquiring the land, same have to be ignored taking into account the importance of the project involved. But, in the present case, no such lapse has been established –
Result : writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Notice No. D4/1382/2019, dated 06.04.2020, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel Division, Siddipet District, respondent No.2 herein, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the same by directing the respondents to forbear from acquiring any land of the petitioner in Damarakunta Village, Markuk Mandal, Siddipet District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner, possessor and pattadar of agricultural land, admeasuring Acs. 4.29 guntas in Survey No. 98, and Acs. 7.38 guntas in Survey No. 99, situated in Damarkunta Village, Markuk Mandal, Siddipet District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2001 for a valuable consideration. Pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in her favour. As on the date, the subject land has 1600 mango trees, 700 red sandal wood trees, 800 teak trees, 100 guava trees and various other vegetable crops. While so, the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice dated 06.04.2020 stating that the land belong to the petitioner to an extent of Ac. 0.14 guntas in Survey No. 98 and Ac. 0.11 guntas in Survey No. 99 has been notified to be acquired for construction of canal under Kondapochamma Reservoir of Kaleswaram Project at Thurkapally. By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to approach the Tahsildar, Markuk Mandai, respondent No. 3 herein, on 07.05.2020, and file her objections along with valid documents, and receive the compensation. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted her objections/letters to the Tahsildar, Markuk Mandal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 07.05.2020, 20.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 respectively. But, there was no response from them. In the objections dated 20.05.2020 and 17.06.2020, the petitioner has categorically pointed out that a large extent of Government land is available on the western and northern sides of her land, and if the canal alignment is taken through the said Government land, a large saving in land acquisition compensation can be made apart from saving valuable land, mango, guava, teak garden, and that the re-alignment of canal in such circumstances would only be marginal, and no prejudice would be caused to anybody.
3. It is stated that in the Notification dated 19.07.2019, published in 'Andhra Prabha' Telugu Daily News Paper, it was notified that an extent of Ac. 0.14 guntas in Survey No. 98 and Ac. 0.14 guntas in Survey No. 99 belonging to the petitioner will be acquired. But, however, in the Notification dated 02.03.2020, published in 'Manam' Telugu Daily News Paper, it was mentioned that Ac. 0.14 guntas in Survey No. 98 and Ac. 0.11 guntas in Survey No. 99 would be acquired.
4. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 has high handedly issued the Notice dated 30.06.2020 through whatsApp on 14.07.2020 directing the petitioner to collect the cheque for compensation amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice or otherwise the same will be deposited with the appropriate authority and the said land will be acquired. On that, she immediately went to the office of the respondent No. 2, to submit a reply to the said notice, but the officials have refused to receive her reply. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. Respondent No. 2 - the Authorised Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act') was published in 'Andhra Prabha' and 'Times of India', Daily News Papers, on 19.09.2019 notifying Acs. 1.20 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 43,98 and 99 of Damarakunta Village, Markook Mandal, Siddipet District. Insofar as Survey No. 98 is concer
Point of law: Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ petition cannot go into technical aspects with regard to the alignment of the canal, more particularly, in the abs....
Failure to update land records during acquisition process led to violation of property rights and resultant compensation for loss and mental agony.
If there is failure to publish notification in two daily newspapers, notification and consequential proceedings for acquiring land would stand vitiated for non-compliance of essential conditions of S....
Procedural lapses in land acquisition notification, hearing, and timelines vitiate proceedings, but completed construction and record loss warrant fresh award under original Act rather than new regim....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
