SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8726

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Smt. Sarita Sugandhi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/11888/2025



The court mandated timely consideration of pending representations for compensation enhancement under the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioner sought to declare the inaction of the respondent in referring the matter for enhancement of compensation as illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Land Acquisition - The petitioner claimed ownership of land acquired for a railway project and sought enhancement of compensation after the award was deemed inadequate. (Paras 3-5)

(C) Procedural Compliance - The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the pending representations and refer the matter to the competent authority within four weeks. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned land acquired for a railway project and sought enhancement of compensation due to inadequate initial award.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the respondent to address the pending representations and refer the matter for enhancement of compensation.

Issues: The main issue was the delay in addressing the petitioner’s representations for compensation enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely action on pending representations regarding compensation enhancement.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to declare the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in referring proceeding No.C/50/2017-Narkhuda and No.C/50/2017-Peddashapur dated 28.08.2018 to competent authority for enhancement of compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to refer the matter to the appropriate authority for enhancement of compensation.”

3. Facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.8.20 gts in Sy.No.250, situated at Narkhuda Village, Ac.5.37 gts in Sy.No.97 and Ac.2.20 gts in Sy.No.95/P, situated at Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same vide registered sale deeds dated 13.02.1991, 13.11.1996 and 23.12.1996, respectively. Further case is that the respondent authorities for doubling with the electrification of the Secunderad-Mahaboobnagar Section (85.240 KMs) under the South Central Railway Project, acquired the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts in Sy.No.250, situated at Narkhuda Village, Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.95/2 and 97/2 in Peddashapur Village. Thereafter, an award was passed with a meager compensation and the petitioner on 10.10.2018, filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and requested the respondent No.2 to refer the matter to competent Civil Court for passing an award for enhancement of compensation. Subsequently, respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 01.12.2018, stated that “the Section of Law Quoted in the application is pertains old L.A., Act 1984 and the same has been repealed New L.A. Act, U/Sec. 30 of 2013 came into existence w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The award has been passed under New L.A. Act, 30 of 2013. Therefore refering the matter U/Sec.18 of L.A. Act 1984, to Authority deserve no consideration.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner on 06.12.2019 and 17.10.2022 made detailed representations under Section 64 of the LA Act 30 of 2013 and requested respondent No.2 to refer the matter to competent Civil Court for passing an award for enhancement of compensation, however, when the same were not considered, the petitioner again on 02.11.2024 sent a reminder addressing the above representations. It is further submitted that inspite of the reminder dated 02.11.2024, petitioners representations dated 06.12.2019 and 17.10.2022 are still pending for consideration. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for referring the matter to competent Civil Court for passing an award for enhancement of compensation, the petitioner had made representation in the year 2019 and since then the representations are pending and pray this Court to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.12.2019 and 17.10.2022 and reminder dated 02.11.2024 and refer the matter to competent authority in a time bound period.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that appropriate orders be passed in this writ petition.

7. Recording the above submission and since the petitioner’s representations dated 06.12.2019 and 17.10.2022 and reminder dated 02.11.2024 are pending, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent authorities to dispose the petitioner’s representations dated 06.12.2019 and 17.10.2022 and reminder dated 02.11.2024 and refer the matter to competent authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top