Madanlal Vijay Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3349 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                   WRIT APPEAL NO.1614 OF 2017

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V.Shravan Kumar)

Heard Mr. Madanlal Vijay Kumar, party-in-person as

appellant and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition,

appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 and perused the material

made available on record.

2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant,

who is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.35113 of 2015, against the

order dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.No.35113 of 2015 by the

learned Single Judge.

3. The case of the appellant/petitioner, in brief, is that the

appellant/petitioner initially filed W.P. No.12429 of 2007

challenging the Proceedings No.G2/2023/2007, dated 25.05.2007

issued by the 1st respondent therein proposing to acquire the

property of the appellant/petitioner without following due process of

law and consequently sought to set aside the proceedings dated

25.05.2007. The learned Single Judge had allowed the said writ

petition on 02.01.2014 by setting aside the Proceedings No.G2/

2023/2007, dated 25.05.2007 and the appellant/petitioner was

permitted to file his objections before the respondent authorities

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the

order and after filing the objections within the time stipulated,

the respondents were directed to issue notice to the appellant/

petitioner fixing the date of enquiry and proceed in accordance with

law.

4. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner also filed W.P. No.27982

of 2014 questioning the notification issued on 24.05.2007 under

Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 and the said writ petition was dismissed by

the learned Single Judge on 19.09.2014 leaving it open to the

appellant/petitioner to agitate his grievance as and when orders are

passed by the competent authority and the Land Acquisition Officer.

Assailing the same, the appellant/petitioner preferred an appeal in

W.A. No.1413 of 2014 and the same was closed as infructuous.

5. Subsequently, the respondents authorities have proceeded

with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter issued

a declaration under Section 6 of the Act afresh on 17.10.2014 and

subsequently passed an award on 05.02.2015. Aggrieved by the

said award dated 05.02.2015, the appellant/petitioner filed

W.P. No.35113 of 2015 challenging the entire proceedings including

the award passed by the respondent No.4, vide File No.A/94/2007,

dated 05.02.2015, stating that the entire proceedings starting from

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, which culminated in the

award dated 05.02.2015 are void and have lapsed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

6. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition contended that

respondent authorities did not pass the award within two years

from the notification dated 24.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of

the Act and as such, the impugned award cannot be sustained.

He would further contend that in view of the provisions of Section

24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20132 (herein

called 'Act 30 of 2013') entire proceedings have lapsed. It is further

contended that in fact, no fresh assessment as per Section 4 to 8 of

Act 30 of 2013 was carried out and the provisions of Sections

11 to 15, 19 and 20 of the Act 30 of 2013 were not followed and no

revision of market rate was undertaken as envisaged under Section

26 of Act 30 of 2013. Further, the respondents did not correctly fix

the compensation amount as per the Act 30 of 2013.

7. Apart from the above, the appellant/petitioner filed his

written submissions in two parts. In Part-I, appellant/petitioner

submitted that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

17.10.2014 afresh pursuant to the order of this Court passed in

W.P. No.12429 of 2007 on 02.01.2014. It is submitted that the

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

learned Single Judge has failed to observe that the old Act was

lapsed on 31.12.2013 two days earlier to the order passed by this

Court in W.P. No.12429 of 2007 i.e., on 02.01.2014 and the new Act

has come into effect from 01.01.2014 one day before the said order.

Hence, the respondents have to follow Sections 8 to 30 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013. It is further submitted that the learned

Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion from the wrong

statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents

that the compensation is determined as per Section 24 read with

Section 27 of the Act 30 of 2013. It is further submitted that the

learned Single Judge has erred to see that the Collector has not at

all taken any steps to revise and update the market value of the

land on the basis of prevalent market rate, which is mandatory

under Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013.

8. In the Part-II of the written submissions, the appellant/

petitioner contends that the compensation award is very meagre

and prays to direct the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Authority where the case of the appellant/petitioner is

pending under Section 64, which is numbered as LAOP. No. 37 of

2019 for fair market value and compensate the appellant/petitioner

as per the prevalent market rate as mandated in Section 26 of the

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

Land Acquisition Act 30 of 2013 and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

CONTENTIONS OF THE REPSONDENTS:

9. On a perusal of writ-affidavit material papers, the Special

Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, Hyderabad filed

counter in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 stating that earlier appellant/

petitioner filed W.P. No.31998 of 2014, challenging the 5-A enquiry

orders of the Collector, R.R. District wherein a counter was filed.

Further, the appellant/petitioner's brothers also filed W.P. No.4985

of 2015 challenging the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act,

published on 17.10.2014.

10. In the counter in W.P. No.35113 of 2015 it is submitted that

the W.P. No.12429 of 2007 was filed by the appellant/petitioner and

the same was allowed by this Court on 02.01.2014. In pursuance

to the order dated 02.01.2014, the 5-A enquiry notices have been

issued to the appellant/petitioner on 31.05.2014, 24.06.2014 and

21.07.2014 and after receiving the objections and upon personal

hearing of the appellant/petitioner, the remarks of the Assistant

City Planner, were obtained and 5-A enquiry notices were finalized

and subsequent proceedings were issued by the Collector, Ranga

Reddy district holding that it is not possible to revert back by

issuing fresh 4(1) notification and action would be taken to issue

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and

accordingly, the draft declaration was published on 17.10.2014.

It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have issued

an award enquiry notices under Section 9(1) & 10 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and in response to the notices, the

appellant/petitioner attended the award enquiry and raised

objections to stall the award enquiry proceedings in view of his W.P.

No.31998 of 2014 pending before this Court and the respondent

authorities have proceeded with the award enquiry and award was

passed on 15.02.2015 as there was no stay orders to stall the award

enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that in the award

enquiry proceedings, the brothers of the appellant/petitioner have

raised rival claims and as such, the compensation amount was

deposited in the City Civil Court, for apportionment and

adjudication. Subsequently, Revenue Divisional Officer,

Rajendranagar, has invoked the provisions of Section 91 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013 and the appellant/petitioner's property

was taken into possession for execution of road widening works.

11. It is further submitted that though two writ petitions were

pending and no stay orders were granted by this Court and after

disposing of the 5-A objections by the District Collector,

R.R. District, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

Acquisition Act has been published on 17.10.2014. It is further

submitted that in view of the stay orders granted in W.P. No.12429

of 2007, the acquisition proceedings could not be taken up and that

the said W.P. No.12429 of 2007 vide order dated 02.01.2014 was

allowed and the draft declaration dated 25.05.2007 was set aside

and directed the appellant/petitioner to file objections and

accordingly the Collector disposed of the objections and ordered to

proceed further by issuing draft declaration as such, there was no

lapse of draft declaration in view of the stay order dated 02.01.2014.

12. It is further submitted that this Court has not set aside the

4(1) notification dated 24.05.2007 and therefore, after disposing of

the objections of the appellant/petitioner, the District Collector

published the draft declaration and the appellant/petitioner

attended the award enquiry and requested to stall the award

proceedings. It is further submitted that since no stay orders were

granted by this Court, award proceedings were concluded on

15.02.2015 as per Section 24(1) (A) read with Section 27 of Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013).

It is further submitted that during award proceedings,

the appellant/petitioner and his brothers raised rival claims over

the acquired property as such compensation was deposited in the

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

Court for adjudication. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner has

remedy under Section 64 of the New (Act 30 of 2013) for

enhancement of compensation. Finally, it is submitted that though

the acquisition proceedings have been initiated prior to the

commencement of 2013 Act, however, as per provisions of Section

24 of the 2013 Act, since the award has not been made under the

1984 Act, the respondent authorities followed 2013 Act for the

purpose of computation of compensation and that in the present

case, Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been followed for the purpose

of computation only.

SUBMISSIONS:

13. However, on behalf of the respondents, the learned

Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appeared and while

reiterating the submissions earlier made by the learned Advocate

General in the writ petition, inter alia, submitted that there was

neither illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the

impugned proceedings as the respondents meticulously and

scrupulously adhered to Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and followed

all the mandatory requirements of law. Further, the issues raised

in writ petition were not maintainable for any judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the

appellant/petitioner that the entire proceedings have lapsed in view

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 is not correct and not

sustainable in the eye of law. Further, if the appellant/petitioner

has any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation,

it is always open for him to approach the authorities under the

provisions of the Act 30 of 2013. Eventually, it is submitted that

the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the case of the

appellant/petitioner and passed the impugned order and therefore,

no interference of this Court is required.

ANALYSIS:

14. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the

learned Single Judge has framed the two issues that "whether the

subject proceedings have lapsed? Whether the petitioner herein is

entitled for any damages as claimed" for consideration.

15. So far as the issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Single

Judge has observed that "Section 11-A of the Act mandates passing

of award within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration.

In the instant case, Section 6 declaration was issued on 17.10.2014

afresh pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP No.12429 of 2007,

dated 02.01.2014. Thereafter, on 05.02.2015, the 4th respondent

passed the impugned Award. Therefore, it can be safely concluded

that the proceedings in the instant case are not vitiated."

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

16. Insofar as the issue No.2 is concerned, the learned Single

Judge has observed that "Since this Court does not find any

procedural infirmity and illegality in the iimpugned action,

the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief under this head

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration

the submissions made in the counter affidavit that only the

compound wall and open space are getting affected, but not the

heritage structure and the distance between the compound wall and

the heritage structure is 75 feet and that the compensation is

determined as per Section 24 read with Section 27 of Act 30 of 2013

and in view of the rival claims the amount is deposited in the civil

Court. After taking into consideration the all above rival

submissions, the learned Single Judge has held that "The other

contention as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the

respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court, can be agitated

by the petitioner herein in an appropriate forum available under Act

30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation i.e., for re-determination

of the quantum of compensation and the petitioner is given two

months time from the date of receipt of this order to avail the said

remedy before the appropriate authority." Accordingly, the learned

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on 11.07.2017 with the

above observations.

18. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order in

W.P. No.35113 of 2015 has opined that as regards the contention of

compensation fixed by the respondents, the appellant/petitioner

can agitate in an appropriate forum available under the Act Section

30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation i.e. re-determination

of the quantum of compensation and the appellant/petitioner was

given two months time from the date of receipt of the copy of the

order to avail the said remedy before the appropriate authority.

CONCLUSION:

19. Since the appellant/petitioner in terms of the order passed in

W.P. No.35113 of 2015 has already availed the remedy before the

appellate authority in LAOP. No.37 of 2019 filed under Section 64 of

the Act, 2013 pending before the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Authority and that the appellant/petitioner

prayed to direct the authority to dispose of the case in a time bound

period and considering the age of the appellant/petitioner,

this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Land Acquisition

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority to expedite the

appellant/petitioner's case in LAOP. No.37 of 2019 as early as

possible. The respondent authorities are directed to communicate

HCJ & NVSKJ W.A. No.1614 of 2017

the order of this Court to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Authority (LARRA) within a period of (1) one week from

the date of this order and thereafter the Land Acquisition

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) is directed to

dispose of the appellant/petitioner's case in LAOP. No.37 of 2019

within a period of four months thereafter.

20. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

                                           ___________________________
                                                  ALOK ARADHE, CJ


                                           ___________________________
                                             N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date:     20-10-2023
LSK