Telangana State Industrial ... vs Sri Mithra Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 510 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
                                          AND
                     THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI


                          Writ Appeal No.710 of 2017

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)


      This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred

against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.710 of

2016 dated 21.03.2017. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition

seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the Award in Proc.No.C/482/04

dated 22.02.2006, on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (L.A) IAP,

Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, as having lapsed in view of the

provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (for short "the 2013 Act").

      Facts

, to the limited extent necessary, are that an award was

passed acquiring Ac.202.00 of land of which Ac.29.33 guntas belonged

to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. While the Land Acquisition Officer

claims to have taken possession of the subject land, three days after the

award was passed on 25.02.2006, the respondent-writ petitioner claims

that possession of the subject land has not been taken from him. In the

order under appeal the Learned Single Judge, having held against the

appellant on both their claims of having taken possession of the subject

land on 25.02.2006 and of their having paid compensation for the

acquired lands, opined that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

It is wholly unnecessary for us to examine whether or not

possession of the subject land was taken prior to the 2013 Act coming

into force on 01.01.2014, as the appeal must fail on the sole ground

that compensation was not paid to the respondent-writ petitioner before

01.01.2014 as required under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

A Division Bench of this Court in D.Mahesh Kumar vs. State of

Telangana1, observed:

"....If both Section 24(2), and the proviso below it, are read as two exceptions to awards made before 01.01.2014, and which would otherwise fall within the ambit of Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, then the consequences would be as under: (a) the entire land acquisition proceedings, in cases where awards are made five years prior to 01.01.2014 (i.e. awards made before 01.01.2009) would lapse if either (i) possession of the acquired land has not been taken, or (ii) compensation has not been paid to any of the land owners before 01.01.2014 (when the 2013 Act came into force). In such cases, the entire land acquisition proceedings would lapse and, if the State still wants to acquire these lands, it would then have to initiate land acquisition proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act; (b) awards made during the five year period between 01.01.2009 and 31.12.2013 would not lapse and, if compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been paid to the beneficiaries specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act before 01.01.2014, then all land owners, under the said notification, will be entitled for higher compensation under the 2013 Act; (c) in respect of awards made during the five year period between 01.01.2009 and 31.12.2013, and where compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has been paid to the land owners before 01.01.2014, the other beneficiaries (minority of land owners who have not received compensation under the 1894 Act till 31.12.2013) would, in terms of Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, be entitled only to be paid the compensation prescribed under the 1894 Act...." (emphasis supplied).

In the present case the award was, admittedly, made on

22.02.2006 nearly three years prior to the prescribed date of

01.01.2009 (i.e., the date five years prior to the 2013 Act coming into

force on 01.01.2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act), and

as compensation for such acquisition was not paid prior to 01.01.2014,

Section 24(2) would require the entire land acquisition proceedings to

be deemed to have lapsed.

2017(1) ALT 400 (D.B.)

Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-

corporation, would submit that the appellant-corporation had deposited

Rs.6,69,82,600/- with the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2006

itself, of which the amount payable for the Ac.29.33 guntas of land,

which the respondent-writ petitioner claims to own, is only Rs.33.15

lakhs. It is, however, admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the

official respondents that the said compensation amount was deposited

with the Court, to whom a reference can be made, only on 17.02.2017

more than three years after the 2013 Act came into force.

The submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition, that non-payment was only because the respondent-writ

petitioner did not approach the Land Acquisition Officer despite

repeated notices, does not merit acceptance as Section 31(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 obligates the Land Acquisition Officer, if the land

owner does not consent to receive the amount, to deposit the amount of

compensation in the Court to which a reference would be made. Even

in cases where there is a dispute as to title, Section 31(2) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 requires the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit

the compensation amount with the Reference Court.

The relevant date is not the date on which the beneficiary, for

whose benefit the land is acquired, has deposited the compensation

amount with the Land Acquisition Officer but the date on which the

Land Acquisition Officer makes payment of the awarded compensation

to the land owner whose land has been acquired. As compensation was

neither paid to the respondent-writ petitioner nor was it deposited in

the Reference Court on or before 31.12.2013, Section 24(2) of the 2013

Act is attracted and the land acquisition proceedings, whereby an

extent of Ac.29.33 guntas of the respondent-writ petitioner's land was

sought to be acquired, must be deemed to have lapsed. Interference in

an intra-Court appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, would be

justified only where the order under appeal suffers from a patent

illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order passed by the Learned

Single Judge. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the said

order.

The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

__________________________ (T.RAJANI, J) 15th June, 2017 JSU

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

Writ Appeal No.710 of 2017

Date: 15.06.2017

JSU