Tulasi Krishnaiah vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4039 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4039 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

Tulasi Krishnaiah vs The Union Of India on 15 November, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

  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