Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K. Srinivas and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 1226 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 26, 27, 28, 29
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, owners of flats in a building, challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, alleging repeated illegal and arbitrary actions by the Respondents. The court had previously issued an order to maintain status quo, but the Respondents continued with the acquisition proceedings, leading to multiple disputes and non-compliance with court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned award was contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Respondents had not fully implemented the court's previous order. The court also noted discrepancies in the extent of the property considered for acquisition and the Respondents' actions in issuing notices and passing awards.
Issues: The main contentions included the legality of the award, non-compliance with court orders, discrepancies in the extent of property considered for acquisition, and the Respondents' actions in issuing notices and passing awards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the importance of implementing court orders. It also highlighted the availability of remedies under Section 64 of the Act for resolving grievances related to compensation and acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the Petitioners to approach the competent Authority under Section 64 and 69 of the Land Acquisition Act to address their grievances.
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned senior designate counsel, Sri A. Venkatesh, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the award proceedings dated 01.11.2022 in the File No. AA/61/2016 as contrary to the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, more particularly Section 26 & 29 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and further declare the action of the respondents in repeatedly passing an award contrary to the provision of LA Act (30 of 2013) and the judgement of this in W .P. No. 21380 of 2021 as colorable exercise of power and for extraneous considerations and consequently direct the respondents to pass an award by following the provision of LA Act (30 of 2013) scrupulously.
3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:
b) Petitioners filed W.P. No. 34560 of 2018 praying to declare the action of the Respondents in issuing Letter No. 44/RW/ACP/C-9B/GHMC/2016 dated June 2017/individual notices as illegal, arbitrary, against all tenets of law, and consequently direct the Respondents either to completely take the total area of the subject property or abstain from the acquisition of the same. The said court was pleased to issue an Order to “maintain status-quo” vide its Order dated 03.10.2018.
c) Whilst maintaining status-quo with respect to the Subject Property, the Respondents concluded the acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act or LA Act) and passed an Award dated 11.10.2019. Subsequently, in February, 2019 the Respondents issued Public Notice under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the LA Act 2019 inviting interested people for award enquiry on 14.03.2019 and on the said day Respondent No. 3 failed to attend the meeting but through its personnel collected signatures of the Petitioners on attendance-sheet.
d) On 14.03.2019, Petitioners furnished a detailed representation and an independent valuation report of the property to the respondents. The award proceedings for 143.92 Sq. yards pertaining to the Preliminary-Notification dated 26.07.2017 concluded without any consideration of the Petitioners objections and rejecting the request for acquisition of property under Section 94 of the LA Act by falsely claiming that the petitioners participated in the Award enquiry.
e) Contrary to the provision of Section 37 (2) of LA Act, Respondents failed in their solemn duty to communicate the Award proceeding dated 11.10.2019 and instead issued Notice dated 06.02.2020 under Section 38 (1) of the LA Act directing the Petitioner to vacate and deliver possession of land/structure contemplated to be acquisitioned under Letter No. 44/RW/ACP/C-9B/GHMC/2016 Dt: June 2017.
f) Subsequently, the petitioner C.C.No.341 of 2020 against Respondents No.3. Through its order dated 13.03.2020, the respondents were directed to show cause for proceedings against them for non-compliance of Order dated 03.10.2018 in W.P. 34560 of 2019. However, the respondents through their counter affidavit remained silent on acquisition of the entire premises.
g) The Respondents thereafter issued a Preliminary Notification through a newspaper, dated 02.02.2021 under Section 11 of the LA Act for acquisition of 398.81 Sq. yards of the property, and provided a time- period of 60 days for filing objection
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with the Land Acquisition Act and the availability of remedies under Section 64 for resolving grievances related to compensation and acquisition p....
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in land acquisition invalidates the award, highlighting the necessity of proper notifications and consideration of market value as per....
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
No award under Section 11 of 1894 Act for specific land post Section 6 declaration causes lapse under Section 11A; mandates fresh acquisition under 2013 Act; delay/laches inapplicable, protects Artic....
Section 11A of Act, Collector has to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within that period, entire proceedings....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 24(1)(a) of the LARR Act, 2013, which mandates the determination of compensation under the provisions of the LARR Act, 2....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
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
