Telangana High Court

Sri Pagodoju Eshwaraiah vs The State Of Telangana on 23 March, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.375 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. P.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants       and     Ms.     D.Madhavi,         learned    counsel    for

respondents No.3 and 4.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated

09.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.2130 of 2021 filed by the appellants as the writ

petitioners.

3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition

questioning the action of the respondents more particularly

respondents No.1 to 4 in not returning back the land to

them to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas in Survey No.383,

situated at Chandanagar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District and instead, allowing respondent No.6 to

conduct business on such land.

4. Case projected by the appellants was recorded by the

learned Single Judge in the following manner:

It is the case of the petitioners that their grandfather Mr. Vadla Narsaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts in Survey No.383 of Chandanagar Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.0.02 gts was acquired by the third respondent by passing an award bearing No.16/1986 in file No.LA/231/81 dated 31.05.1982 by awarding a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and possession of the same was taken over on 06.05.1981. It is the case of the petitioners that the grandfather of the first petitioner passed away in the year 1988 and thereafter, the said extent of land was succeeded by the father of the first petitioner and on the demise of the first petitioner's father on 27.12.2004, the petitioners herein claims to have succeeded to the lands in Survey No.383. It is the further case of the petitioners that, though an award was passed as early as in the year 1982, no compensation was paid either to the grandfather or the father of the first petitioner and that the said acquired land to an extent of Ac.0.02 gts remained unused and the same was assigned in favour of the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is also stated to have

constructed a shed over the said extent of Ac.0.02 gts and carrying on his commercial activity.

5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that

under Section 99 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (briefly, "the 2013 Act" hereinafter),

the acquired land is not to be allotted to private parties and

in terms of Section 101 of the said Act, the land should be

returned back to the petitioners.

6. The writ petition was contested by Land Acquisition

Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority by filing

counter affidavit. Stand taken in the counter affidavit was

as follows:

3. As against the claim of the petitioners, the third respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the subject land admeasuring Ac.0.02 gts was acquired by following due process of law under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act, 1894" for brevity) and an award was passed on 31.05.1982 and possession was also taken over from the grandfather of the first petitioner as early as on 16.05.1981 and a road was already laid over the land, which is being claimed

by the petitioners. It is also stated that in view of the dispute with regard to the compensation that is payable in respect of Ac.0.02 gts of land acquired from the grandfather of the first petitioner the matter was referred to the District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar through letter No.LA/231/81 dated 05.08.1982 under Section 30 of the Act, 1894. Thus, it is contended by the third respondent that the land that is acquired is already utilised for the purpose of laying approach road from Bombay Road to Ramachandrapuram Ring Town and therefore, the relief, as sought for in the Writ Petition, cannot be granted.

7. On considering the rival pleadings and after hearing

learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of the

materials on record, learned Single Judge declined to

entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same by

holding as follows:

4. From a perusal of the material on record and on hearing the learned counsel on either side, it is evident that the subject land was acquired as early as on 31.05.1982 by passing an award and possession of the same was admittedly taken over on 16.05.1981. The grandfather of the first petitioner was alive till the year 1988 and the father of the petitioner was alive till the year 2004. During their lifetime, they have not made any

claim nor raised their little finger against the acquisition proceedings that had taken place or against non- payment of compensation to them. The petitioners herein, after a long lapse of time and for the first time, submitted a representation on 17.07.2013 requesting the third respondent not to handover the subject land to any third parties on the ground that the petitioners are taking steps to question the land acquisition proceedings that have already concluded in the year 1982. Thus, the claim that is made by the petitioners for the first time in the year 2013 is after a lapse of more than three decades. On this ground alone, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, as against the stand of the third respondent that a road was already laid over the subject land and the same was already being utilised for the purpose which was acquired, no material is placed on record by the petitioners to show that the subject land is vacant and is assigned or allotted in favour of the sixth respondent.

5. As the acquisition proceedings were already concluded in the year 1982 and the matter is also stated to have been referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, 1894, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

8. Thus, learned Single Judge recorded that the subject

land was acquired as far back as on 31.05.1982 by passing

an award. Possession thereof was admittedly taken over

on 16.05.1981; grandfather of the petitioners was alive till

1988; father was alive till 2004; during their lifetime they

had not lodged any claim for non-payment of compensation

and long after they had expired, petitioners made a

representation on 17.07.2013 requesting respondent No.3

not to handover the subject land to third party. Learned

Single Judge rightly disregarded such representation made

after a lapse of more than three decades of the land

acquisition. It was also noted that though the land