Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
Ranga Gundaiah S/o Late Sri R. Nagaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.37452 of 2021, 18355, 21687 and 21734 of 2022
Decided on : 18-08-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - PUBLIC PURPOSE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(1) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TEMPLE - WHETHER EXEMPT FROM ACT - WHETHER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Government Order exempting the application of provisions of Chapter II and III of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act) for acquisition of private land for developmental works at Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Dharmapuri. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was not for the purpose of the Government or for holding the same for the Government, and that the exemption under Section 10(A) of the Act could only be invoked for infrastructure projects, which did not include the purpose for which the land was being acquired.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition of land for the development of the temple fell within the meaning of an infrastructure project under Section 10(A) of the Act, as it included projects for tourism and transport, and that the purpose of the acquisition was for public purpose as defined under the Act. The court also held that the word 'and' used before the words 'for public purpose' in Section 2(1) of the Act should be construed as a disjunctive, and not as a conjunctive, and that the provisions of the Act would apply to all acquisitions of land for the use of the appropriate Government, its undertakings, and other public purposes.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land for the development of the temple falls within the meaning of an infrastructure project under Section 10(A) of the Act? 2. Whether the purpose of the acquisition is for public purpose as defined under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 10(A) of the Act and held that the acquisition of land for the development of the temple fell within the meaning of an infrastructure project, as it included projects for tourism and transport. 2. The court interpreted Section 2(1) of the Act and held that the word 'and' used before the words 'for public purpose' should be construed as a disjunctive, and not as a conjunctive, and that the provisions of the Act would apply to all acquisitions of land for the use of the appropriate Government, its undertakings, and other public purposes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the acquisition of land for the development of the temple was exempt from the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act, and that the petitioners were granted liberty to submit their objections to the preliminary notification within a period of two weeks.
ORDER :
All these Writ Petitions are filed questioning G.O.Rt.No.488 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department, dated 23.12.2021, and the consequential preliminary notification bearing No.G1/773/2020, dated 04.02.2022, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), by the respondents and as such, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The impugned Government Order was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under Clause (e) of Section 10(A) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016, exempting the application of the provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act, 2013, for acquisition of the private land admeasuring Acs.29.04 gts., and structures around Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Dharmapuri, for initiating Developmental Works. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the impugned notification, dated 04.02.2022, was issued by the respondents and the same was published in the Telangana Gazette No.01 of 2022, dated 04.02.2022.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.18355 of 2022 is a trust, questioned the entire notification, dated 04.02.2022, covering an extent of Acs.11.16 gts., of agricultural land and an extent of 6209.59 Sq. Yds. of land covered by various structures. Whereas in Writ Petition Nos.37452 of 2021, 21687 of 2022 and 21734 of 2022, the petitioners therein have challenged the impugned notification only to the extent of land and structures owned by them i.e., an extent of 544 Sq. Yds., 715 Sq. Yds., and 415 Sq. Yds. respectively. The said extents are stated to be covered by houses of the respective petitioners.
4. Heard Sri Resu Mahendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18355 of 2022, Sri S.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.37452 of 2021, Sri Madas Bharath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.21687 and 21734 of 2022, Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General and Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. Sri Resu Mahendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contended that the impugned Government Order is mainly attacked the notification on the ground that the subject land is being acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Temple and as such, the provisions of the Act, 2013 have no application for acquiring the subject land. In other words, it is the contention of learned Senior Counsel that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 2013, the provisions of the said Act apply only when the appropriate Government acquires the land for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public purpose only, but, in the instant case, the subject land is being acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Temple but not for the purpose of the Government or for the purpose of holding the same for the Government. Further, it is contended that the power under clause (e) of Section 10(A) of the Act, 2013, can be invoked only in respect of acquisitions for the purpose of infrastructure including electrification and irrigation projects and the purpose for which the subject land is being acquired does not fall under any of the projects/purposes covered by Section 10(A) of the Act, 2013. It is also contended that the application of provisions contained in Chapter II and III of the Act, 2013, can be exempted only in case there is urgency for acquiring the lands, but such exemption cannot be granted in a routine manner. Thus, it is contended that the impugned notification issued consequent upon exempting the provisions of Chapter II and III is also liable to be set aside as the impugned Government order itself is n
The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to all acquisitions of land for the use of the appropriate Gover....
The exemption from Social Impact Assessment under s. 10-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (as amended by Telangana Act 2016) for specific projects categorized as public purpose is valid, and disput....
The government must demonstrate clear, specific public interest and compliance with proviso mandates to invoke section 10A exemptions. Without satisfying these jurisdictional facts, the exclusion of ....
The acquisition for a purpose stated in general terms, such as “for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi”, or “for the planned development of Delhi”, cannot be described as....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the requirement for acquisitions to serve a 'public purpose' as defined under the Act of 2013.
The court affirmed that lands acquired for public purpose cannot be deemed unviable based solely on non-utilization, emphasizing the executive's discretion in assessing public interest.
Supreme Court has further struck a note of caution that though Courts are generally not entitled to go behind declaration of Government to effect that acquisition is for "public purpose", an exercise....
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
