Telangana High Court
Smt. Seetha Sulochana vs The State Of Telangana on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.220 of 2021
Date: 10.08.2021
BETWEEN
Smt. Seetha Sulochana.
... APPELLANT
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Srikanth Hariharan
Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Revenue
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy)
This writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 13.05.2021 dismissing WP.No.11582 of 2020, filed
by the appellant.
2. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the learned
Single Judge. The brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The petitioner is the owner, possessor and pattadar of
agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.29 guntas in Sy.No.98 and Ac.7.38
guntas in Sy.No.99, situated in Damarkunta Village, Markuk Mandal,
Siddipet District, having purchased the same under a registered sale
deed dated 12.03.2021, for a valuable consideration. Pattadar pass
book and title deeds were also issued in her favour. The land has 1600
mango trees, 700 red sandal wood trees, 800 teak trees, 100 guava
trees and various other vegetable crops. The petitioner received a
notice dated 06.04.2000, issued by the Authorized Officer and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel/respondent No.2 informing her that
an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.No.98 and Ac.0.11 guntas in
Sy.No.99 (subject land) has been notified to be acquired for
construction of a canal from Kondapochamma Reservoir of the
Kaleswaram Project at Thurkapally.
(b) It is the case of the petitioner that she was straightaway
called upon to receive the compensation for acquisition from the
Tahsildar/respondent No.3 on 07.05.2020. The petitioner did not
received any notice of acquisition nor was she granted a hearing. She
was not aware of any paper publication in the newspaper, allegedly
made. On 07.05.2020, she submitted objections before the Tahsildar,
followed by the objections dated 20.05.2020 submitted to the RDO;
further objections dated 17.06.2020 were submitted before the
Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department/respondent No.4 as well as to
the Executive Engineer, KPCD-2 Department/respondent No.5. In her
objections, the petitioner stated that that large extent of Government
land is available on the western and northern side of her land and if
the canal alignment is taken through the side of the Government land,
a huge saving in land acquisition can be made besides saving valuable
land and her mango, guava and teak garden. The land to be acquired
in such a case would be only marginal, the re-alignment of the canal,
in such circumstances, would be minimal and no prejudice would be
caused to any party.
(c) On an enquiry by the petitioner, she came to know that a
notification dated 19.07.2019 was published in the Andhra Prabha, a
Telugu daily newspaper proposing to acquire the subject land.
Notification dated 02.03.2020 was published in Manam, a Telugu daily
newspaper wherein it was mentioned that Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.No.98
and Ac.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.99 would be acquired out of the
petitioner's land. There is contradiction and confusion with regard to
the extent of land to be acquired, which was not clarified. Notice dated
06.04.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 makes another
contradictory claim calling upon petitioner to receive compensation for
Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.No.98 and Ac.0.11 guntas in Sy.No.99. The
petitioner stated that the alignment of canal was being changed for
oblique reasons and in an arbitrary fashion.
(d) It was further stated that the RDO had highhandedly issued
a notice No.D4/1382/2019 dated 30.06.2020 under Section 23 and 30
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the
Act of 2013') through whatsapp on 14.07.2020, calling upon the
petitioner to collect the cheque for compensation within seven days
from the date of receipt of the said notice. She went to submit a reply
but the officials refused to receive the same. She was constrained to
post the reply through RPAD. The petitioner filed a rough sketch plan
along with a petition and submitted that as against the red colour
marked a "proposal", if the green colour marked, as "earlier proposal",
is taken into consideration, her land would be affected partially. She
has also shown a yellow colour proposal for realignment, by which
there would be least impact on the cost of acquisition thereby saving
her valuable land. The said representation of the petitioner was
however not considered.
(e) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2 stating
inter alia that the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the
Act of 2013 was issued and published on 19.09.2019 in the two daily
newspapers i.e. the Andhra Prabha and the Times of India on
19.09.2019 notifying Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.Nos.43, 98 and 99 of
Damarkunta Village, Markuk Mandal, which includes the subject land of
the petitioner. Insofar as Sy.No.98 is concerned, Ac.0.14 guntas of
patta land belonging to the petitioner was notified and insofar as
Sy.No.99 is concerned, Ac.0.14 guntas was notified in the name of
seven persons jointly, based on the enjoyment and the revenue
records. Subsequently, the Grama Sabha was conducted under Section
11(2) of the Act of 2013 on 14.02.2020. Neither during the Grama
Sabha or within 60 days from the date of issuance of the preliminary
notification, was any objection received from the petitioner or by any
of her representatives. Declaration under Section 19(1) was published
in two daily newspapers i.e. "Manam" and "The Hans India" on
02.03.2000. The same was also published in the District Gazette
No.120/2020 dated 25.02.2020 and duly uploaded on the District
website for an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas as against Ac.1.20 guntas
notified in the preliminary notification, as Ac.0.03 guntas of land in
Sy.No.43 was resumed, being assigned land. In the said declaration,
Ac.0.14 guntas of patta land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.98
was declared for acquisition and in Sy.No.99, only Ac.0.11 guntas was
declared for acquisition in the name of the petitioner, for the reason
that the remaining extent of Ac.0.03 guntas was found to be in
possession and patta in the name of Smt. Guduru Padma. Thus, there
was a variation of Ac.0.03 guntas in the preliminary notification and
the final declaration in the name of the petitioner.
(f) Notices were issued to the concerned land losers including
the petitioner on 06.04.2020, to attend the Award enquiry on
07.05.2020 at the Office of the Tahsildar, Markook Mandal. During the
said enquiry, the petitioner filed a petition and requested for a change
of the alignment of the proposed canal. The said objections were
considered as per Section 23 of the Act of 2013 and were rejected.
Accordingly, the draft award to an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas was
prepared on 15.06.2020 and submitted to the District Collector,
Siddipet, for approval. The same was approved by the District
Collector and the award was pronounced on 29.06.2020. The
respondent stated that notices dated 30.06.2020 have been issued to
the concerned land losers including the petitioner, requesting them to
receive the award compensation within seven days.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that
the subject land of the petitioner was acquired by duly complying with
the provisions of the Act of 2013. There was substantial compliance of
mandatory requirements under Sections 11 and 19 of the Act of 2013.
The petitioner did not file any objection for issuance of Section 11
notification. Therefore, the question of dealing with the objections
under Section 58 of the Act of 2013, does not arise. It was further
observed that the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot go into technical aspects with regard to the alignment of
the canal. It is for the technical experts to deal with the technical
aspects and not for the Courts to propose some other alternate route
or design.
4. Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted before the court that the impugned acquisition proceedings
are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013. The
notification of acquisition of the land was not affixed or published at
conspicuous places in the affected area, which is a mandatory
requirement under the Act of 2013. The learned Single Judge has
erred in holding that there is substantial compliance. The provisions of
the Act of 2013 have to be strictly followed and they are mandatory in
nature. Hence, there is a violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India. Change in alignment as proposed by the appellant, is not a
technical aspect of acquisition. In fact, it reduces the cost of
acquisition. He contended that the respondents have unilaterally
changed the alignment of the canal without notice to the appellant.
The provisions of the Act of 2013 have not been complied with. Mere
affixation of notice in the Gram Panchayat Office is not sufficient
compliance. It was also submitted that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in J & K HOUSING BOARD v. KUNWAR SANJAY KRISHAN
KAUL1 has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the subject lands of the appellant had been acquired strictly in
compliance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The appellant was
(2011) 10 SCC 714
aware of the acquisition proposed; notices were served on her; she
had submitted objections and participated in the award enquiry. Thus,
the allegation of the appellant about non-compliance of the provisions
of the Act of 2013, is without any basis and there are no merits in the
writ appeal.
6. We may note from the facts of the case that the preliminary
notification under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 was issued
proposing to acquire the subject lands of the appellant. The same was
published in the "the Andhra Prabha" and "the Times of India", daily
news papers on 19.09.2019, which was followed by a declaration
under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2013 published in two daily
newspapers "Manam" and "The Hans India". Notice of award enquiry
dated 06.04.2020 was issued personally to the appellant. It is not in
dispute that the appellant had received the said notice. There is no
denial to the statement of the respondent No.2 made in the counter,
that the Grama Sabha was conducted on 14.02.2020 under Section
11(2) of the Act of 2013 and no objections were received from the
appellant during the meeting of the Grama Sabha or within 60 days
from the date of the preliminary notification. After receipt of a notice
dated 06.04.2020 issued under Section 21(4) of the Act of 2013 and
Rule (26) of the Rules framed thereunder, the appellant submitted
objections on 07.05.2020. Subsequently, objections dated 20.05.2020
were submitted by her before the respondent No.2. Later, further
objections were filed by the appellant on 03.06.2020. In her
objections, the appellant stated that the alignment of the canal can be
changed, as there is dry land available towards southern and western
side of her land and the western land belongs to the Government. It
needs to be noted that in none of these three objections did the
appellant raise any grievance regarding non-compliance of the
provisions of the Act of 2013.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the
mandatory procedure, as contemplated under the Act of 2013, has
been duly complied with by the respondents. The appellant was
afforded reasonable opportunity to submit her objections. After receipt
of the award enquiry notice, the appellant chose to submit three
representation/objections seeking a change of alignment. The
judgment of the Supreme Court in J & K HOUSING BOARD's case
(1 supra) is of no help to the appellant as there is no violation of the
provisions of the Act of 2013. As pointed out by the learned Single
Judge, the Court cannot enter into the realm of technicalities. It is for
the technical experts to deal with the alignment and designs. The
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India has been violated, is without any basis. The
record discloses that the provisions of the Act of 2013 have been
complied with. There is no scope for this Court to interfere with the
impugned acquisition proceedings and the order of the learned Single
Judge.
8. The writ appeal is found to be devoid of merits and it is
accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed with no order as to costs.
_____________
HIMA KOHLI, CJ
__________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
August 10th, 2021
DSK
