B Sanker Rao vs Prl.Secretary La And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4166 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


         WRIT PETITION Nos.5336 and 5868 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:


      The dispute in both the writ petitions has arisen out of land

acquisition award dated 31.10.2014 in File No.B/893/2013 under

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short

'the Act'). The petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by

the action of the respondents in not passing award and paying

compensation in compliance of Section 24 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act 30 of 2013').

2. The petitioners in WP.No.5336 of 2017 are owners of the

following acquired properties:

         Sl.           Municipal No.                Extent
         No.                                       Sq. yards
          1.             9-4-64/13                   20.67

          2.             9-4-64/12                   20.12

          3.             9-4-64/16                   11.47

          4.         9-4-64/14 & 15/1                62.60

          5.      9-4-64/125/J, 9-4-64/15            200.37
                           & 15/1
          5.        9-4-119/A/B and 117              19.74
                     9-4-116/A/B & 117

The petitioner in WP.No.5868 of 2017 is the owner of the

property bearing Municipal No.8-1-368/A (P) admeasuring 84.69

sq. yards situated at Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

3. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was

issued on 24.10.2013 and published in the local newspapers on

28.10.2013. Section 5A enquiry was conducted by the respondents

on 28.11.2013 wherein the petitioners participated. Draft

declaration under Section 6(6) of the Act published on 18.12.2013.

Award was passed on 31.10.2014. The possession of the

aforementioned properties was taken by the respondents on

12.11.2014.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on

05.11.2014 and compensation was received by them under protest

on 11.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under

Section 18 of the Act without prejudice to their rights and matter

was referred to the XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad vide OP.Nos.64, 63, 62 and 61 of 2016 and OP.No.55 of

2016 before the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

5. Mr. Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the Act was repealed on 31.04.2013 by the Act 30 of

2013 and compensation has to be paid under the provisions of the

Act 30 of 2013. However, in the instant case, the compensation was

paid under the Act. The same is illegal. He further submitted that

the award has to be set aside and direction be issued to the

respondents to re-determine the compensation as per the

provisions of the Act 30 of 2013.

6. In the counter of the respondents, it was contended that

there are lapses on the part of the petitioner. Award was passed on

31.10.2014. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017.

The petitioners have received compensation and handed over

physical possession of the property. They availed benefit under

Section 18 reference claiming enhanced compensation and as such,

they are not entitled to claim compensation under the Act 30 of

2013.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of a

Division Bench of this Court in D. MAHESH KUMAR v. STATE OF

TELANGANA1. In the said judgment, award enquiry was initiated

under the Act of 1894. Awards were passed before the Act 30 of

2013 came into force on 01.01.2014. The issue before the learned

Division Bench was whether compensation, which was, admittedly,

not paid prior to 01.01.2014, has to be paid under the Act 30 of

2017 (1) ALT 400

2013 or under the Act of 1894. This Court held that the petitioners

are entitled for compensation prescribed under the Act 30 of 2013.

8. However, in the instant case, the petitioners have a better

case on facts. Admittedly, the award was passed on 31.10.2014

and compensation was paid to the petitioners on 11.11.2014.

Thereafter, possession was taken from the petitioners on

12.11.2014. Section 24 of the Act 30 of 2013 reads as under:

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed."

9. In the present case, the award was not passed before

01.01.2014, when the Act 30 of 2013 came into force and

Act, 1894 was repealed. The award dated 31.10.2014 was passed

under the repealed Act and the same is void and non-est in the eye

of law.

10. In view of the clear mandate under Section 24(1)(a) of the

Act 30 of 2013, the respondents ought to have passed the award

under the Act 30 of 2013. Even if Section 4(1) notification was

issued under the Act of 1894, still the award enquiry should have

been conducted and compensation paid under the Act 30 of 2013.

11. In view of the above observations, the writ petitions are

allowed. The award dated 31.10.2014 is set aside insofar as the

petitioners are concerned. The respondents are directed to issue

notice for award enquiry and re-determine the compensation as per

Section 25 of the Act 30 of 2013. Consequently, Section 18

reference vide OP.Nos.64, 63, 62 and 61 of 2016 and OP.No.55 of

2016 on the file of the XXIV and XXV Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, is also set aside. The learned Judge is

directed to close the OP's. After redetermination of compensation

under the Act 30 of 2013, the compensation amount already

received by the petitioner pursuant to the provisions of the Act of

1894 shall be adjusted and balance compensation amount shall be

paid to the petitioners. The award enquiry, redetermination of

compensation and payment of compensation shall be completed

within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J August 17, 2022 DSK