Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23671
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Gaddaguti Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondent
WP/31824/2024
Tenants under the Endowments Act are not entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act as their tenancy rights have been terminated by law.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 30 - Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 82 - Petitioners claimed protected tenant status over land owned by a temple but were deemed encroachers due to an award passed in 2006. Court noted that petitioners had not received notice regarding compensation and ruled that their tenancy had terminated by operation of law. (Paras 4, 11, 12)
(B) Rights of Tenants - Tenants under the Endowments Act do not have rights under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Dispossession - Court directed authorities not to evict petitioners during the harvest season for standing crops. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed to have cultivated land belonging to a temple for generations and argued against eviction without compensation. Respondents stated that an award had been made in 2006, designating petitioners as encroachers.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the respondents' position but allowed the petitioners to harvest their crops before eviction.
Issues: Whether petitioners could claim protected tenant status and compensation despite the 2006 award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioners' rights as tenants had been terminated by law and they were not entitled to compensation or protected status.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions regarding eviction.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Petitioners contend that since, the time of their forefathers, they have been cultivating the agricultural land belonging to Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple situated in survey Nos.37, 40, 42, 48 and 58 of Raviryala Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and they are recognized as ‘protected tenants’.
3. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the respondents-authorities are taking steps to evict them from the said land without paying any compensation.
4. Petitioners further contend that though in the writ petition viz., W.P.No.20052 of 2022, dt.28.04.2022, the respondents-authorities have claimed to have deposited compensation amount payable before the Civil Court by making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), neither the details thereof were furnished to the petitioners nor the petitioners received any notice from the Court, and as such the action of the respondents-authorities in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, which has a standing paddy crop and other commercial crops, is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that an Award has been passed on 20.06.2006 in respect of the subject land and Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple has been recorded as the owner of the subject land, while, the petitioners are shown as ‘interested persons’.
6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, an Award has been passed way-back in June, 2006, and reference has been made in terms of Section 30 of the Act, the petitioners, who are continuing to occupy the subject lands, are to be considered as encroachers.
7. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that by virtue of operation of law, the petitioners cannot claim to be ‘protected tenants’ in respect of endowment land.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. This Court recently had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 82 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987(for short ‘the Endowments Act’) vis-à-vis the tenancy in WP.No.17150 of 2019, dt.30.10.2024. In the said decision this Court following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddy & Ors.,
10. However, this Court in the aforesaid decision taking note of the fact that the petitioners therein have claimed to be ‘persons interested’, directed the respondents- authorities to verify as to whether the petitioners therein were recorded as ‘persons interested’ in order to be entitled for R&R Package benefits, since, the acquisition therein
11. In the facts of the present case, though the petitioners are recorded as ‘interested persons’, since, an award has been passed way back in June, 2006 under the provisions of Act, 1894, and a reference having been made under Section 30 of the Act, 1894 to the Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any protection as protect
