Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23450
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Pagadala Laxmaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/17292/2023
Finality in legal proceedings prevents repeated applications for compensation when prior claims have not been challenged, upholding the integrity of judicial decisions.
Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 64 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioners claimed compensation for acquired land, which was not awarded despite similar claims being compensated. Court noted previous orders enhancing compensation and rejected petitioners' fresh representation for reference to Civil Court, stating that prior rejection had attained finality. (Paras 2-14)
(B) Legal Finality - The principle of finality in legal proceedings was emphasized, as petitioners did not challenge earlier rejection of their claim, thus precluding further requests under the Act. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners owned land acquired for a channel; compensation was awarded to others but not to them. Previous court orders directed compensation which was delayed, leading to petitioners' protest and subsequent requests for enhanced compensation.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners' request for enhanced compensation was rejected as they did not challenge the earlier decision, which had attained finality.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation and if their subsequent representation was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the petitioners' failure to challenge the earlier rejection barred them from seeking further reference under the Act, emphasizing the finality of legal decisions.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the absolute owners of land admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas situated at B.Annaram Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District; that by a common notification dt.26.01.2000, the said land of the petitioners along with four others was acquired by the authorities for the purpose of excavation of surplus coarse field channel; that the 3 rd respondent had passed award dt.18.10.2000 determining the compensation of Rs.35,000/- per acre in respect of four persons, excluding the petitioners; and that though their land was acquired under common notification, the 3 rd respondent neither passed any award in their favour nor were paid any compensation.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that upon the application made by the said four persons in whose favour an award was passed seeking reference, the same was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda; that the Reference Court, by order dt.17.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.86 of 2002, enhanced compensation from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.70,000/-; and that the same was also confirmed by this Court in LAAS No.578 of 2007 dt.02.10.2013.
4. Petitioners further contend that as the respondents-authorities did not pass any award in respect of their lands, they were compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.24838 of 2004 questioning the action of the respondents-authorities in deleting the names of the petitioners from the award proceedings dt.18.10.2000; that this Court vide order dt.06.03.2012, had directed the 3 rd respondent to pay compensation to the petitioners for an extent of Ac.0.25 guntas @ Rs.875/- per gunta with 30% solatium and interest at 9% and 15% per annum, within three months from the date of the order; that the 3 rd respondent after a lapse of six months issued proceedings dt.30.07.2019 awarding Rs.875/- per gunta; that the petitioners have received the said amount under protest and made a representation dt.27.08.2019 seeking reference to Civil Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’); that the said representation was summarily rejected by the 3 rd respondent through Memo dt.09.09.2019.
5. Petitioners further contend that by the time of payment of compensation to them vide proceedings dt.30.07.2019, the compensation amount was already enhanced to the other claimants by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre vide order dt.17.11.2006, in O.P.No.86 of 2002, as confirmed by the High Court in LAAS No.578 of 2007 vide order dt.22.10.2013; and that the 3 rd respondent did not pay the enhanced compensation amount though they were similarly situated on par with other claimants.
6. It is also the case of the petitioners that by way of reminder, the petitioners have submitted another representation dt.28.03.2023 bringing to the notice of the concerned authority the order passed in O.P.No.86 of 2002 dt.17.11.2006, whereby the compensation originally determined was enhanced to Rs.70,000/- per acre, and since, the land of the petitioners forms part of the same notification, they are also entitled for payment of the enhanced compensation amount; that the 3 rd respondent however in a mechanical manner by the impugned proceedings dt.19.05.2023 had rejected the request of the petitioners, without taking into consideration the above facts and by merely reiterating the contents of the communication dt.09.09.2019, which action it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Act.
7. A counter-affidavit by respondent No.4 on behalf of the respondents is filed.
8. By the counter-affidavit, it is contended by the respondents that compensation
