THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1068 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. P.Bhavana Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition Department for respondent Nos.3, 6, 7
and 9.
Ms. G.Sindhu, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Energy Department for respondent No.4.
Mr. M.Hareesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader
for Irrigation Department for respondent No.5.
Mr. Pattipaka Ram Prasad, learned Government
Pleader for Social Welfare Department for respondent No.8.
Mr. R.Pavan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.10 and 11.
::2::
2. This intra court appeal has been filed against
an order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.26077 of 2023, by which writ petition
preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
3. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellants are the owners of the residential houses situated at Thirlapuram Gram Panchayat, H/o. Ramanujavaram Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 issued a preliminary notification dated 19.06.2019 under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Act, 2013'), by which the residential houses belonging to the appellants were sought to be acquired for the purposes of laying new Railway Line from Manuguru Railway Station to the plant of respondent No.11-Bhadradri Thermal Power Station.
::3::
4. The appellants in response to the aforesaid notification have submitted objections. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 was issued on 21.09.2019. Thereafter, an award has been passed on 29.04.2021. After the award was passed, W.P.No.26077 of 2023 was filed on 19.09.2023, in which the appellants have assailed the validity of the preliminary notification dated 19.06.2019 issued under the Act, 2013 inter alia on the ground that the provisions of the Act, 2013 cannot be invoked for acquisition of the land in the light of Section 105 of the Act, 2013. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 20.09.2023 has dismissed W.P.No.26077 of 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that provisions of the Act, 2013 cannot be invoked in view of the mandate contained in Section 105 of the Act, 2013. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that after the preliminary notification dated 19.06.2019, a declaration under Section ::4::
19(1) of the Act, 2013 has already been issued on 21.09.2019 and an award has been passed on 29.04.2021. It is also pointed out that the appellants have received the compensation as determined by the competent authority in the award. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to challenge the validity of the preliminary notification dated 19.06.2019.
7. The writ appeal preferred by the appellants deserves dismissal for the following reasons:
(i) It is trite law that once an award has been passed, the validity of the preliminary notification seeking to acquire the land cannot be challenged. The Supreme Court while dealing with a challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, held that when a person challenges a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on any ground, it should be challenged within a reasonable period and if the acquisition is challenged at a belated stage, the petition deserves to be dismissed only ::5::
on this ground. [See: Hari Singh v. State of U.P. 1]. Similar view was reiterated by Supreme Court in State of Mysuru v. V.K.Kangan 2, State of Orissa v. Dhodei Sethi 3, State of Tamilnadu v. L.Krishnan 4 and C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu 5.
(ii) The appellants have neither sought to challenge the validity of the declaration issued on 21.09.2019 under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 as well as the award dated 29.04.2021.
(iii) The appellants have also not disclosed the fact in the writ petition that an award has already been passed on 29.04.2021 and the appellants have received compensation as determined by the competent authority in the award dated 29.04.2021.
1 AIR 1984 SC 1020 2 AIR 1975 SC 2190 3 (1995) 5 SCC 583 4 AIR 1996 SC 497 5 (1997) 2 SCC 627 ::6::
(iv) The appellants have approached this Court with unclean hands and therefore, are not entitled to any relief in the exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.
(v) The appellants have accepted the amount of compensation and therefore, at this point of time, it is not open for them to contend that the proceedings initiated under the Act, 2013 are without jurisdiction.
(vi) Therefore, at this point of time, the petitioners are estopped from contending that the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land under the Act, 2013 are without jurisdiction.
(vii) Sofar as contention that in the light of Section 105 of the Act, 2013, the provisions of the Act, 2013 cannot be invoked for acquisition of the land is concerned, the same does not apply as the project in question is not a Special Railway ::7::
Project as defined under Section 2(37-A) of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 15.11.2023 Note: Issue C.C. today (B/o.) KL