Motilal, Died Per Lrs T. Prithivi Raj, ... vs Dist Collector, R.R. Dist And 2 Ot
2024 Latest Caselaw 2575 Tel

Telangana High Court

Motilal, Died Per Lrs T. Prithivi Raj, ... vs Dist Collector, R.R. Dist And 2 Ot on 9 July, 2024

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                     AND
      THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
      Writ Appeal No.410 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.3384 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. V.V.Gautam, learned counsel appears for

Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants/writ

petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants').

Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government

Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General

for the State of Telangana appears for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited

appears for respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as

'APIIC').

2. The intra court appeal viz., W.A.No.410 of 2016 is

directed against order dated 10.09.2014, passed by a learned

Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

appellants viz., W.P.No.1883 of 2003 has been partly allowed ::2::

and a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act')

dated 18.10.2002 has been quashed.

3. Learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the

respondents to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act

by giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the

appellants and to proceed further in accordance with law.

4. In W.P.No.3384 of 2016, the petitioners inter alia have

sought for a relief that since no declaration has been issued

within a period of one year from the date of issuance of

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the proceedings

initiated under the Act have lapsed.

5. The issues involved being common, the writ appeal and

the writ petition are heard together and are being decided by

this common judgment.

::3::

6. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ appeal and the

writ petition need mention, which are stated hereinafter. The

appellants claim to be the owners and in possession of

agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.07 guntas situated in

Survey Nos.112 and 113 of Nanakramguda Village,

Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter

referred to as 'the subject land'). The subject land was required

for the purpose of establishment of I.T.Park by APIIC.

Thereupon, the proceedings under the Act were set in motion.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued

on 17.10.2002, by which the subject land was sought to be

acquired for public purpose viz, establishment of I.T.Park.

However, the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act were also

invoked and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was

dispensed with. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was

issued on 18.10.2002. The draft notification was published in

the Gazette on 29.10.2002 whereas the draft declaration was

published in the gazette on 30.10.2002. According to the ::4::

respondents, a decision was taken under the cover of

Panchanama on 28.01.2003 and the possession of the subject

land was handed over to APIIC.

7. The appellants thereupon filed a writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.1883 of 2003 on 29.01.2003, in which validity of the

land acquisition proceeding was challenged inter alia on the

ground that establishment of IT park by APIIC cannot be

construed as public purpose and notification and urgency

clause in the facts and circumstances of the case is not justified.

Learned Single Judge, by an interim order dated 28.11.2005,

directed the parties to maintain status quo.

8. Thereafter, the aforesaid writ petition was partly allowed

by an order dated 10.09.2014. Learned Single Judge inter alia

held that right to property is a constitutional right and a

property belonging to a person cannot be taken away without

even conducting an enquiry. The action of the respondents in

invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act in the facts and ::5::

circumstances of the case was found to be unjustified. Learned

Single Judge, therefore, quashed the declaration under

Section 6 of the Act and granted liberty to the respondents to

hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving notice

and opportunity of hearing to the appellants and to proceed

further in accordance with law.

9. Admittedly, after the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 10.09.2014, no steps were taken to issue the declaration

within a period of one year. The appellants filed W.A.No.410

of 2016 against the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the

learned Single Judge along with an application for condonation

of delay. Thereafter, on 01.02.2016, the writ petition viz.,

W.P.No.3384 of 2016 was filed seeking the relief of quashment

of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on the

ground that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has not

been issued within a period of one year. In the aforesaid ::6::

factual background, the appeal as well as the writ petition arise

for our consideration.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after

the order was passed by the learned Single Judge

on 10.09.2014, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was

not issued within a period of one year and therefore, the

notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is liable to be

quashed. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has

been placed on Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme

Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamilnadu 1 and

Prabhawati v. State of Bihar 2.

11. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader

submitted that after disposal of the writ petition on 10.09.2014,

the Special Deputy Collector (LA) requested the Collector to

clarify whether to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the

Act or as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

(2002) 3 SCC 533

(2014) 13 SCC 721 ::7::

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013

Act'). Thereafter, on 12.04.2015, the Special Deputy Collector

(LA) and Collector issued notice under Section 15(1) of

the 2013 Act. It is further submitted that on 01.05.2015, the

Tahsildar returned the file to the Special Deputy Collector

(LA). Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was

held on 10.06.2015 and the appellants appeared in the aforesaid

enquiry. Thereafter, the report under Section 5-A of the Act

was submitted on 27.07.2015. However, the fact that a

declaration under Section 6 of the Act has not been issued has

not been disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader.

12. We have considered the rival submissions made on both

sides and perused the record.

13. Section 6 of the Act deals with declaration of the land,

which is required for a public purpose. Section 6(1) of the Act, ::8::

which is relevant for resolving the controversy involved in the

instant writ petition, reads as under:

"Where the appropriate Government or the District Collector is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the purpose of construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or any other officer duly authorised to certify their orders or the District Collector as the case may be, and different declarations may be made, from time to time, in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);

Provided that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section (1):-

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and ::9::

Validation) Ordinance, 1957 (1 of 1957), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:

(ii) published after commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification.

                 Provided        further     that     no     such
        declaration    shall      be      made      unless    the

compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

14. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is

evident that if any declaration under Section 6 of the Act, has

to be published after the Land Acquisition (Amendment)

Act, 1984, the same has to be made within a period of one year

from the date of publication of the notification.

::10::

15. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Padma

Sundara Rao (supra) has dealt with Section 6 of the Act and

has held that where declaration under Section 6 of the Act is

quashed by a Court, fresh declaration must be issued within the

period of limitation prescribed by the proviso. Thus, the

declaration has to be issued within a period of one year. Paras

3 and 7 of the aforesaid decision are extracted below for the

facility of reference:

"3. The controversy involved lies within a very narrow compass, that is, whether after quashing of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another notification under Section 6. In the case at hand such a notification issued under Section 6 was questioned before the Madras High Court which relied on the decision of a three-Judge Bench in N. Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 3 SCC 88] and held that the same was validly issued.

------

::11::

7. As the factual scenario shows, in the case at hand the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and the declaration was made prior to the substitution of the existing proviso to Section 6(1) by Act 68 of 1984 with effect from 24-8-1984. In other words, the notification under Section 4(1) was issued before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, but after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 [replaced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act 13 of 1967)]. But the substituted proviso was in operation on the date of the impugned judgment. In terms of the proviso, the declaration cannot be made under Section 6 in respect of any land covered by the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act after the expiry of three years or one year from the date of its publication, as the case may be. The proviso deals with two types of situations. It provides for different periods of limitation depending upon the question whether: (i) the notification under Section 4(1) was published after commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and ::12::

Validation) Ordinance, 1967, but before commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, or (ii) such notification was issued after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the former case, the period is three years whereas in the latter case it is one year. Undoubtedly, the notification under Section 6(1) was made and published in the Official Gazette within the period of three years prescribed under the proviso thereto, and undisputedly, the same had been quashed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding. It has to be noted that Explanation 1 appended to Section 6(1) provides that in computing the period of three years, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1), is stayed by an order of the court, shall be excluded. Under Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1980, w.e.f. 20-1-1967, the expression used is "action or proceeding ... is held up on account of stay or injunction", which is contextually similar."

16. Now, we advert to the facts of the case in hand. The

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued ::13::

on 17.10.2002. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the

Act was issued on 18.10.2002. The aforesaid declaration under

Section 6(1) of the Act was quashed by learned Single Judge by

an order dated 10.09.2014. Thus, from the date of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge, respondents ought to have

issued a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act after

conducting enquiry. Admittedly, the declaration has not been

issued within the statutory period prescribed therein and after

expiry of the period of one year, a Bench of this Court had

granted an interim order on 08.02.2017. In view of second

proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act, the respondents cannot

proceed further in pursuance of the notification issued under

Section 4(1) of the Act dated 17.10.2002.

17. For the aforementioned reasons, notification

dated 17.10.2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, which

was published in the gazette on 29.10.2002, in relation to

subject land only is hereby quashed. However, the respondents ::14::

are granted the liberty to proceed in the matter afresh in

accordance with law, if so advised.

18. In the result, W.P.No.3384 of 2016 is allowed and

W.A.No.410 of 2016 is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 09.07.2024 LUR