IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Kasuganti Lakshman Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24094 of 2014
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Section 18, 31(2), 54, 30 and 31 - Writ of mandamus - Claim Compensation - Apportionment of Compensation - According to petitioner, as there is no dispute, entire compensation for land acquired should have been paid to him - Further, petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of Act for determination of correct market value vide application - grievance of petitioner is that respondents, having referred matter under Section 30 of Act (title dispute/apportionment), have not referred matter for reference under Section 18 of Act (enhancement claim) - Several representations have been submitted by petitioner and due to inaction of respondents, instant writ petition is filed - Land Acquisition Officer appears to have lost sight of statutory benefits available under Act like payment of interest at 9% per annum for first year and 15% interest per annum from second year onwards payable to land owner/claimant.
Findings of the Court:
If petitioner’s claim under Section 30 of Act is rejected, then automatically reference under Section 18 of Act will also to be consequently rejected. On other hand, if petitioner’s claim under Section 30 of Act is allowed or partly allowed, then in same proportion, enhancement will be awarded to petitioner under Section 18 of Act. However, surprisingly respondent has taken a stand that due to civil dispute, reference under Section 18 of Act is not made. Such stand of respondent No. 2 is improper and as stated above defies any logic.
Results: Writ Petition allowed in part.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents to pay the award amount with interest along with all statutory benefits as per the Award No. 26/2007-08 dated 27.03.2008 and refer the award proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in respect of the acquired land admeasuring Acs. 4-00 in Survey Nos. 536 and 538 situated at Muthyampet Villae, Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District.
2.1. The case of the petitioner is that he is owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1-39 guntas in Survey No. 536 and Acs. 2-01 guntas in Survey No. 538, totalling to Acs. 4-00. Originally, the said land was in the name of the petitioner’s father Mr. K. Sriranga Rao. The land was divided into equal shares as per partition in O.S. No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the petitioner was allotted half share. A total extent of Acs. 4-00 of land was acquired by the respondents for laying excavation for Flood Flow Canal from K.M. 80.000 to 81.000 and 81.000 to 82.000 in the limits of Muthyampet Village, Millial Mandal, Karimnagar District in 2005. In the said land, there were 120 mango trees, a well with pipeline facility for the garden and the same was recorded during enquiry and the petitioner is entitled for compensation under Category - A.
2.2. During award enquiry, as there were disputes between the petitioner and his father, respondent No. 4, having fixed the land value at Rs. 6,89,440/- per acre towards compensation for the acquired land, referred the matter vide letter No. B/46/2006 dated 19.07.2008 for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act.
2.3. It is claimed by the petitioner that his father K. Sriranga Rao died on 23.02.2014 and as per the registered will deed dated 31.12.2013, he succeeded to the share of his father i.e. half of the land admeasuring Acs. 2-00 in Survey Nos. 536/2 and 538/2.
2.4. According to the petitioner, as there is no dispute, the entire compensation for the land acquired should have been paid to him. Further, the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of correct market value vide application dated 19.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents, having referred the matter under Section 30 of the Act (title dispute/apportionment) vide letter No. B/46/2006 dated 12.08.2008, have not referred the matter for reference under Section 18 of the Act (enhancement claim). Several representations have been submitted by the petitioner and due to inaction of the respondents, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. The case of respondent No. 6 as stated in the counter affidavit is that the awarded amount was deposited by respondent No. 4 in the civil Court vide reference No. B/46/2005 dated 12.08.2008 under Section 31(2) of the Act through the cheque bearing No. 398902 dated 12.08.2008 for a sum of Rs. 6,89,440/-. The cheque amount was not realised by the learned Senior Civil Judge within the validity period of one month, and therefore, the cheque was returned vide letter No. D.Dis.18346 dated 04.12.2008 for revalidation after four months by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial. The claim of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act was not considered by respondent No. 4 as there was title dispute with regard to the land under acquisition. The compensation amount will be deposited as and when funds are received.
4. Heard Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and perused the material on record.
5. Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that due to death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property as per the registered will deed dated 31.12.2013 and he is entitled to receive entire compensation for the acquired land
SupremeToday
Genuineness of will deed including a registered one has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.
The court clarified that applications under Sections 18 and 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act are distinct, allowing the petitioner to pursue enhancement of compensation despite prior rejections.
The limitation period for seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act commences from the date the ownership of the land becomes final, and consistent treatment should be given by....
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides specific procedures for re-determination of compensation, and the court's writ jurisdiction is limited by the scope of the Act.
The court affirmed that delays in filing compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act can be overlooked in favor of equitable treatment, preserving citizens' property rights under Article 300A.
A legal heir is entitled to claimed compensation based on promises made by land acquisition authorities, regardless of significant delay, emphasizing principles of equity and promissory estoppel.
The reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act should be decided on merits, and claimants should be given the opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim for enhanc....
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.