Telangana High Court
Bayikattu Sujanamma vs State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
1
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
W.P.No.25832 of 2018
Between:
1. M. Shankar and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department (LA & JA), Telangana Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.31482 of 2023
Between:
1.Bayikattu Sujanamma and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department (LA & JA), Telangana Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.06.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
%Dated 06.06.2024
# W.P.No.25832 of 2018
Between:
2. M. Shankar and others.
...Petitioners
AND
2. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department (LA & JA), Telangana Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.31482 of 2023
Between:
1.Bayikattu Sujanamma and others.
...Petitioners
AND
1. State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department (LA & JA), Telangana Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar.
^ Counsel for Respondents :Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Spl. Government
Pleader for Additional Advocate
General.
Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, Standing
Counsel for TSIIC
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1
2004(2) ALT 546 (L.B.)
2
AIR 1964 SC 358
3
AIR 1967 SC 1074
4
AIR 1968 SC 647
5
(1996) 2 SCC 549
3
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
6
(2007) 13 SCC 482
7
(2020) 2 SCC 569
8
(2021) 14 SCC 703
9
(2010) 10 SCC 282
10
(2008) 4 SCC 695
11
(2011) 5 SCC 394.
12
(2017) 10 SCC 713.
13
(1996) 4 SCC 579
14
(2000) 2 SCC 48
15
2016) 14 SCC 191
16
AIR 1964 SC 685
17
(2009) 5 SCC 242
18
(2013) 14 SCC 304
19
Unreported judgment in W.P.No.15312 of 2016
20 2023 SCC OnLine TS 621
4
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Since both these writ petitions arise out of the
common issue, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Heard Sri Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government
Pleader for Additional Advocate General for the
respondents and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-TSIIC.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the Government has assigned lands to the petitioners,
who belong to marginalized sections of the society, in
their respective villages and they are cultivating those
lands and eking out their livelihood.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that in the year, 2015 the officials of the
respondents informed the petitioners that they
proposed to establish National Investment and
Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) in the lands of their village
and other neighbouring villages. An amount of
Rs.5,65,000/- per acre was paid to the private patta
landowners and an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre were paid to the petitioners for
the assigned lands after obtaining their signatures. He
submits that with regard to their assigned lands, no
registration was done and not a single piece of paper
was given to the petitioners and even they were not
allowed to read the papers on which their signatures
were taken. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No.123
Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 is
applicable to private patta lands and the same cannot
be applied to the assigned lands as the said transaction
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
is in contravention of the Telangana Assigned Lands
(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that as per the Act, 2013, the assigned land
holders are also defined as 'affected family', 'land
owners' as well as 'interest persons' and in case of
acquisition of assigned lands, the procedure under the
said Act to be followed and the compensation and
rehabilitation entitlements as per the said Act have to
be extended to the petitioners. He further submits that
without following due process of law and without
paying fair compensation and rehabilitation
entitlements, the respondents had acquired their lands
in the name of public purpose and the petitioners made
several representations to the respondent authorities,
but no action has been taken and the proceedings
initiated by the respondents are liable to be set aside by
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
allowing the writ petitions and requested to direct the
respondents to initiate Land Acquisition Proceedings as
per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013').
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on
the following decisions;
1.Land Acquisition Officer-cum-R.D.O., Chevella
Division, Hyderabad and others vs. Mekala Pandu
and others 1.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh2
3. Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan3
4. State of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra4
5. Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P 5
6.Government of Karnataka vs Gowramma6
7. Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh 7
8.B.K.Ravichandra vs. Union of India8
2004(2) ALT 546 (L.B.)
AIR 1964 SC 358
AIR 1967 SC 1074
AIR 1968 SC 647
(1996) 2 SCC 549
(2007) 13 SCC 482
(2020) 2 SCC 569
(2021) 14 SCC 703
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
7. Learned Special Government Pleader for Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondents
submits that the Government of India has announced a
National Manufacturing Policy with the object of
enhancing the share of manufacturing in GDP to 25%
within a decade and creating 100 million jobs. The
National Investment and Manufacturing Zones (NIMZ)
are important instrumentality of manufacturing policy.
They have selected remote area where the land was
barren and un-cultivable fallow lands for establishment
of NIMZ, Zaheerabad.
8. Learned Special Government Pleader further
submits that the authorities have informed the
assignees for taking their assigned lands for
establishment of NIMZ project and took the applications
along with Forms-I and II for procurement of their
assigned lands. He submits that the petitioners have
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
voluntarily came forward and submitted their
willingness to part their lands in favour of TSIIC Ltd. As
per the rates fixed by the District Level Land
Procurement Committee (DLLPC) under G.O.Ms.No.123
Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 i.e, @
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to the lands which are under
cultivation by the assignees and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre
to the lands kept fallow by the assignees since long
back.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader further
submits that sales statistics for the three years before
procurement of the said assigned lands i.e., 2013 to
2015 have been assessed as per the Act, 2013. The
total market value of the agricultural lands including
1.5% factor and 100% solatium comes to Rs.2,42,494/-
per acre in respect of Mungi Village and Rs.2,76,714/-
per acre in respect of Yelgoi village, whereas the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
authorities have paid land ex-gratia as fixed by the
DLLPC @ Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for
agricultural land and fallow land respectively and they
paid ex-gratia than the market value of the lands.
10. Learned Special Government Pleader further
submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015, the Tahsildars have
started the procurement of lands of willing land
owners/assignees for establishment of NIMZ project
and the assignees have submitted their applications
along with Forms-I and II before the authorities
concerned with their willingness and then the Tahsildar
concerned have issued notices to the concerned
assignees and passed the resumption orders and paid
considerable ex-gratia to the assignees. The physical
possession of the land was taken and handed over to
the TSIIC Ltd., under proper panchanama for
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
establishment of NIMZ project. He submits that the
officers have followed due procedure, paid the
reasonable ex-gratia to the eligible assignees and
handed over their assigned lands to the respondent
No.9-TSIIC Ltd for establishment of NIMZ project.
11. Learned Special Government Pleader further
submits that the petitioners in W.P.No.25832 of 2018
have submitted their applications on 24.01.2018 and
the petitioners in W.P.No.31482 of 2023 have submitted
their applications in the month of October, 2023 with a
request to make payment on par with patta lands after
a gap of two to seven years from the date of submission
of Forms-I and II and received amounts and thereafter
approached this Court.
12. Learned Special Government Pleader further
submits that the authorities have conducted
panchanamas for taking possession of lands in Yelgoi
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
Village of Jhara Sangam Mandal and Mungi Village of
Nyalkal Mandal, possession was taken under
Possession Certificates and handed over to the Zonal
Manager, TSIIC on different dates and the petitioners
have not challenged the resumption proceedings as on
this date and the same has become final. He submits
that the ex-gratia of assigned lands relating to the
petitioners have been paid in the year, 2016 and the
physical possession was taken in February, 2016
onwards and handed over to TSIIC Ltd respectively and
the subject assigned lands of petitioners have been
mutated in the name of TSIIC Ltd., and recorded in
Dharani Portal also. He further submits that the
assigned lands were acquired for NIMZ project by
paying ex-gratia to the assignees by following due
process of law and requested to dismiss the writ
petitions.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
13. Learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents has relied on the following decisions;
1. Nand Kishore Gupta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 9
2. Swaika Properties (P) Ltd vs. State of Rajasthan 10.
3. Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs Motilal
Agarwal11
4. State of Maharashtra Vs. Reliance Industries
Limited 12
5. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. Vs Zaver Chand Popatlal
Sumaria13
6. Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs Shah Hyder
Beig 14
7. Ranveer Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through
Secretary 15
8. State of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev16
9. Urmila Roy vs Bengal Peerless Housing
Development Company Limited 17
10.Mutha Associates vs. State of Maharashtra 18
11. Algi Tukkamma, Medak District vs. The Chief
Secretary, Hyderabad19
12. Special Collector, AMRP and SLBC vs. Kinnera
Syam20
(2010) 10 SCC 282
(2008) 4 SCC 695
(2011) 5 SCC 394.
(2017) 10 SCC 713.
(1996) 4 SCC 579
(2000) 2 SCC 48
(2016) 14 SCC 191
AIR 1964 SC 685
(2009) 5 SCC 242
(2013) 14 SCC 304
Unreported judgment in W.P.No.15312 of 2016
20 2023 SCC OnLine TS 621
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
14. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-
TSIIC based on the counter averments submits that in
order to procure the land for establishment of NIMZ,
Zaheerabad, the State of Telangana followed
G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA) Department
dated 30.07.2015. As per the said G.O., the TSIIC has
submitted requisition proposals before the District
Collector at Sanga Reddy for procuring the land to an
extent of Ac.12635.14 gts covering 14 villages of Nyalkal
Mandal and 3 villages of Jharasangam Mandal which
consists of the assigned lands, patta lands and
Government lands as a comprehensive block. The said
proposals were approved and the steps were taken by
the District Level and Land Procurement Committee by
negotiating with the owners and assignees who have
voluntarily submitted applications in Forms-I and II
before the District Collector agreeing for the rate.
Pursuant to the same, the Corporation has deposited
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
an amount of Rs.166.25 Crores with the LAO through
different demand drafts and the possession of the lands
were handed over to the Corporation under cover of
panchanamas on different dates by demarcating it
together with maps. The said land thus vested in the
Corporation is free from any encumbrance and
thereafter, the name of the Corporation was also
mutated in the revenue records as pattedar and
possessor.
15. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that
the master plan for development of entire project was
also entrusted to a consortium of L & T Infrastructure
Engineering Limited., Pricewater House Coopers (I)
Limited and Mahendra Consulting Engineers Ltd., and
soon after approval of the project and after getting ENC
clearance, comprehensive developmental activities will
be initiated and thereafter, allotments will be made to
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
achieve the object of industrialization and also generate
employment to cater the needs of larger section of the
society and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
16. After hearing both sides and perusal of the
record, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioners are assignment patta holders and residents
of Yelgoi Village, Jharasangam Mandal and Mungi
Village, Nyalkal Mandal of Sanga Reddy District. The
respondent authorities have proposed to establish
National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ),
Zaheerabad, in the villages of the petitioners and other
surrounding villages. The respondents have procured
the lands as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 in respect of both the
villages and paid amounts to the petitioners as well as
the other landowners of the respective villages.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
17. It is not in dispute that as per the rate fixed by
the District Level Land Procurement Committee
(DLLPC), the respondents have paid ex-gratia of
Rs.4,00,000/-per acre to the lands which are under
cultivation by the assignees and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre
to the lands kept fallow by the assignees. In both the
cases, as per the records submitted by the respondents,
all the petitioners have received amounts as per the
extents of their assignment pattas in the month of
February, 2016 onwards. Before receiving the
ex-gratia, the petitioners have submitted Forms-I
and II as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 in the month of
December,2015 and January, 2016. The respondent
authorities have issued show cause notices to the
petitioners individually in the month of January and
February, 2016 for resumption of the lands. The
petitioners have not given any explanation with regard
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
to the said show cause notices. In view of the same, in
the month of February, 2016, the respondents have
resumed the lands in favour of the Government and
categorically stated that the ex-gratia will be paid to the
petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue
(Assignment-I) Department dated 23.12.1993. All these
documents were filed by the respondent authorities
along with their counters and by way of additional
material papers. But the petitioners have not
questioned the resumption proceedings.
18. After passing the resumption proceedings, the
respondent authorities have handed over the lands to
the respondent No.9-Telangana State Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation Limited(TSIIC) and the
revenue authorities have mutated the lands in the
name of TSIIC. The respondent No.9-TSIIC, filed Form-
13-B and also pahani adangals in the name of the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
respondent No.9 from 2016 onwards along with
counter. The petitioners without questioning the
resumption proceedings and mutation of the revenue
records have received the ex-gratia and thereafter filed
representations before the authorities concerned for
payment of ex-gratia on par with the private patta
holders of their village and other benefits. Nearly after
two years and after six years, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.25832 of 2018 and W.P.No.31482 of 2023
respectively, questioning the action of the respondents
for procuring the assigned lands of the petitioners.
19. In fact, the record reveals that though the
petitioners have received resumption notices in the
month of December, 2015 and January, 2016, they
have not submitted any reply. The petitioners have
submitted Forms-I and II as per G.O.Ms.No.123
Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 in the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
month of December, 2015 and received amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for the lands which are under
cultivation and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for the lands
which are kept fallow respectively.
20. The main contention of the petitioners is that
once the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014, the
respondents cannot acquire the lands of the petitioners
without following due procedure as contemplated under
the said Act. The G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 cannot be applied to the
petitioners as they are not land owners, but they are
assignees of the Government Lands. Due to threat and
coercive action from the respondents, the petitioners
have accepted the ex-gratia and they are ready to
return the said ex-gratia and requested to set aside the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
proceedings and direct the respondents to initiate land
acquisition proceedings as per the Act, 2013.
21. The G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 was issued for
procurement of the land from the willing land owners
and others by the procuring agency for public purpose.
It clearly mentioned that the willing land owners and
others, the petitioners being assignment patta holders
and they would come within the meaning of others.
Moreover, as per the definition of 'land owner' under
Section 3(r)(iii) of the Act,2013 includes "any person
who is entitled to be granted patta rights on the land
under any law of the State including assigned lands". In
view of the same, G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 is applicable to the
petitioner's case as on the date of resumption and
payment of ex-gratia.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
22. The petitioners have relied upon the interim order
dated 05.01.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.30910 of 2016 in
W.P.No.25036 of 2016 stating that the entire
proceedings are liable to be set aside and direct the
respondents to initiate the proceedings under the Act,
2013. The relevant portion of the above interim order is
as follows;
"In the light of what we have held hereinabove,
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 issued in the exercise of
executive power of the State Government under Article 298 of
the Constitution of India, can be applied for voluntary purchase
of land by the State from willing land owners. However, as the
2013 Act confers certain rights and extends several benefits to
the affected families (other than land owners also), clause (b) of
the proviso to Article 298 of the Constitution disables the State
Government from applying G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 to
voluntarily purchase lands for irrigation projects as it would
deny the marginalized sections of society who are dependent
upon these lands of the land owners. For their survival of the
rights conferred on them by the 2013 Act, more particularly
those under Schedules II and III thereof.
Pending disposal of these Writ Petitions, the State
Government shall, henceforth, not purchase lands under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 for the public purpose of
construction of irrigation projects. It is made clear that this
order shall not preclude the respondents from acquiring lands
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
under the 2013 Act on complying with the conditions stipulated
therein for rehabilitation and resettlement of all the affected
families, other than those land owners whose lands have
already been purchased by the State Government under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015. All these W.P.M.Ps, are
accordingly disposed of."
In the instant case, the respondents have taken
Forms-I and II from the petitioners as per
G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA) Department
dated 30.07.2015 in the month of December, 2015 and
passed resumption orders and paid ex-gratia to the
petitioners from the month of February, 2016 onwards
and completed before the interim orders passed by this
Court in the above case.
23. The contention of the petitioners is that some of
the affected families in NIMZ, Zaheerabad have filed
W.P.No.15312 of 2016 questioning the G.O.Ms.No.123
Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 and
this Court allowed the said writ petition by setting aside
the said G.O., and also G.O.Ms.No.214
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
Revenue Department dated 20.11.2015. Aggrieved by
the said orders, the respondents herein filed
W.A.No.677 of 2016 and this Court has granted interim
orders on 09.08.2016 and subsequently the same was
modified on 16.08.2017 directing the respondents not
to dispossess the land owners and affected families
from the lands and the said Writ Appeal is still pending.
In view of the same, the respondents cannot take steps
to dispossess the petitioners till disposal of W.A.No.677
of 2016.
24. The respondents contended that the subject
matter in W.P.No.15312 of 2016 and W.A.No.677 of
2016 is not connected to the instant writ petitions as
the petitioners herein are assignment patta holders and
the petitioners in the said writ petitions are landless
agricultural labourers and they have questioned
G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA) Department
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
dated 30.07.2015. In the instant cases, the petitioners
have not questioned the said G.O. Before passing the
orders in W.P.No.15312 of 2016, the process of
resumption of the lands from the petitioners were
completed and the petitioners have also received
ex-gratia amounts as per their entitlement.
25. The dispute in W.P.No.15312 of 2016 and
W.A.No.677 of 2016 is also with regard to procurement
of lands for the purpose of NIMZ, Zaheerabad. But the
facts in the instant cases are different from the facts in
W.P.No.15312 of 2016. In view of the same, the said
interim orders in W.A.No.677 of 2016 are not applicable
to the instant cases.
26. The contention of the respondents is that the
subject lands belong to the Government and the
petitioners are only assignees of the Government lands.
At the tim/e of granting pattas, there was a resumption
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
clause mentioned in the patta certificates. As per the
procedure, the respondents have issued show cause
notices to the petitioners for resumption of the subject
lands, but they failed to submit any objection for
resumption of the lands. On the other hand, the
petitioners have submitted their willingness to receive
ex-gratia as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015 and they have received ex-
gratia in the year, 2016 itself and now seeking
compensation as per the Act, 2013 by suppressing the
facts before this Court. The further contention of the
respondents is that the petitioners without questioning
the resumption orders and without questioning the
G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA) Department dated
30.07.2015 having taken the ex-gratia and filed the writ
petitions after a lapse of more than 2 years and 6 years
respectively and the same cannot be maintainable.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
27. The number of Judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioners are not apply to the facts of
the instant cases except Mekala Pandu's case (cited 1
supra) as the respondents have not paid the ex-gratia to
the petitioners on par with the private patta holders in
the same villages.
28. After passing the interim orders dated 05.01.2017
in W.P.M.P.No.30910 of 2016 in W.P.No.25306 of 2016
and batch, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.53
Industries & Commerce (IP & INF) Department
dated 01.08.2017 exempting the National Investment and
Manufacturing Zone, Zaheerabad under Section 10-A of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and also clarified that all efforts have been made in
finalizing the minimum extent of land required for the
said project. Now, the petitioners wanted to follow the
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
Land Acquisition Act, 2013, but not questioned
G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 01.08.2017 which was issued before
filing of the writ petitions. In view of the same, the
Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are not apply to the instant cases.
29. Some of the Judgments relied on by the learned
Special Government Pleader are apply to the instant
cases and the same are as follows;
(i) In Nand Kishore Gupta's case (cited 9 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.46 as under;
"The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
could not deny the fact that the total number of petitioners concerned
in these acquisition proceedings, coming up before the High Court,
was extremely insignificant as compared to those who had accepted
the compensation. Of course, that by itself may not be the only reason
to hold against the appellants (petitioners), however, that fact will have
to be kept in mind while deciding the issues which cover the whole
acquisition process, which acquisition is for the purpose of
development of 25 million square meters of land. The High Court has
also noticed this aspect. We have mentioned this aspect only with a
limited objective of showing that the criticism against the whole
scheme which would invalidate the acquisition would be difficult to be
accepted, particularly in this case, in view of the fact that majority of
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
the land owners have parted with possession, taken the compensation
and thus, the whole scheme has progressed to a substantial level,
wherefrom it will be extremely difficult now to turn back to square one.
The above Judgment is apply to the instant case.
Except the petitioners, other land owners have not
questioned the impugned procedure followed by the
respondents as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA & LA)
Department dated 30.07.2015. The petitioners also
after receiving the amounts made representations for
enhancement of ex-gratia on par with private patta
holders. But requested to set aside the entire
proceedings before this Court. The assigned lands of
the petitioners were taken over and handed over to the
respondent No.9 and revenue records were also
mutated. At this stage, the entire proceedings cannot
be set aside without questioning the said proceedings.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
(ii) In Banda Development Authority's case (cited 11
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.37
as under;
37. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments
are:
i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute
taking of possession of the acquired land.
ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to
go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as
sufficient to constitute taking of possession.
iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists,
mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not
sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned
authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure
or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the
presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the
panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or
building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the
acquired land has not been taken.
iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the
acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and
every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is
taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent
witnesses and getting their signatures on such document.
v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State
and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A)
and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in
furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may
reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken.
Para 37 (iv) of the above Judgment is apply to the
instant cases as the land in the instant cases is huge
extent and symbolic possession is sufficient. The
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
contention of the petitioners is that as on this date,
they are in possession of the land and the respondents
have not taken over their lands, but the respondents
have filed the relevant documents, which shows that
the lands were resumed in favour of the Government
and the same were allotted to the respondent No.9 and
the revenue records were also mutated to that effect.
Therefore, it is presumed that possession of the
acquired lands have been taken by the respondents.
(iii). In Municipal Council's case (cited 14 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.14 as under;
"The High Court has thus misplaced the factual details and
misread the same. It is now a well-settled principle of law and we need
not dilate on this score to the effect that while no period of limitation is
fixed but in the normal course of events, the period, the party is required
for filing a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true
that this extraordinary jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings
of the people in general but it is not out of place to mention that this
extraordinary jurisdiction, has been conferred on to the law courts
under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable
principle, Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, `delay defects equity'
has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article
226 of the Constitution. The discretionary relief can be had provided one
has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours
a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant and this being the basic tenet
of law, the question of grant of an order as has been passed in the matter
as regards restoration of possession upon cancellation of the notification
does not and cannot arise. The High Court as a matter of fact lost sight
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
of the fact that since the year 1952, the land was specifically reserved for
public purposes of school playground and roads in the development plan
and may reason therefore, the notification to acquire the land has,
therefore, been issued under the provisions of the Act as stated above.
(iv). In Urmilla Roy's case (cited 17 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.60 as under;
" It is significant that this letter written by the Attorney Urmila
Roy, on behalf of all the land owners spells out that the owners had in
fact been willing to negotiate the price for the land at the time when the
acquisition were still incomplete as only the Notification under Section
4 of the Act had, at that stage, been issued (4th December 2000). It is
also significant that the declaration under Section 6 had been issued on
29th November 2001 and the award rendered on 27th December 2003. It
is, therefore, evident that the land owners had, in fact, acquiesced to the
acquisition and cannot now turn around to say that the acquisition was
bad in law."
(v) In Mutha Associates's case (cited 18 supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.22 as under;
"22. The view taken by the Constitution Bench in Aflatoon case (supra)
has been reiterated by another Constitution Bench decision in Indrapuri
Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
[1973 (4) SCC 296]. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. I.D.I. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
[JT 1996 (81) SC 16 : 1996 (11) SCC 501], Ramjas Foundation and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. [JT 1992 (Suppl.) SC 370] and Larsen & Toubro
Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [JT 1998 (2) SC 536 : 1998 (4) SCC 387].
The common thread that runs through all these decisions is that in order
to succeed in a challenge to the acquisition proceedings the interested
person must remain vigilant and watchful. If instead of doing so, the
interested person allows grass to grow under his feet he cannot invoke the
powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The failure of the interested persons to seek redress at the appropriate
stage and without undue delay would in such cases give rise to an
inference that they have waived of their objections to the acquisitions. The
bottom line is that the High Court can legitimately decline to invoke their
powers of judicial review to interfere with the acquisition proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution if the challenge to such proceedings is
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
belated and the explanation offered a mere moon shine as is the position in
the case at hand. The High Court has in the fact situation of this case
rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the acquisition
proceedings.
The above Judgments also apply to the instant cases
as the petitioners have submitted Forms-I and II for
receiving amounts as per G.O.Ms.No.123 Revenue (JA
& LA) Department dated 30.07.2015 and received
resumption notices and received ex-gratia amounts
from February, 2016 onwards and not questioned the
resumption orders and mutation of revenue records.
30. There is no dispute with regard to the receiving of
the amounts by the petitioners in different dates from
February, 2016 onwards. As per the statements of the
acquittance register, some of the petitioners have received
amounts up to Rs.20,00,000/- for the cultivable lands
and up to Rs.16,25,000/- for the lands kept fallow. Once
the petitioners have received amounts, the contention
that they have no knowledge about the proceedings with
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
regard to the resumption of the lands, conducting of
panchanamas, taking over possession and handing over
the lands to the respondent No.9 cannot be decided by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ordinarily, this Court cannot examine the disputed
question of fact in writ proceedings whether under the
threat or coercion the petitioners have received the
amounts. Moreover, the petitioners in spite of receiving
the counters long back have not questioned the
resumption proceedings and mutation of the records in
favour of the respondent No.9-TSIIC.
31. In the instant cases, the petitioners have received
an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to the lands which
are under cultivation by the assignees and
Rs.3,25,000/- per acre to the lands kept fallow by the
assignees respectively. In view of the same, this Court is
not inclined to set aside the entire proceedings initiated
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
by the respondents. But the petitioners have right to
get the ex-gratia on par with the private patta holders of
the same villages.
32. The respondents have filed the proceedings of
District Level Land Procurement Committee (DLLPC)
along with the counter and calculation of the
compensation as per the Act, 2013. Taking into
account the sales statistics for the last three years
before 2015, the value of the agricultural lands
including 1.5% factor and 100% solatium comes to
Rs.2,42,494/- per acre in respect of Mungi Village and
Rs.2,76,714/- per acre in respect of Yelgoi village and
the respondents have paid ex-gratia to an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and to an amount of
Rs.3,25,000/-per acre respectively to the assignment
patta holders and paid to an amount of Rs.5,65,000/-
to the patta holders of both the villages. The said
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
action is discriminatory and contrary to the Judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court in Mekala Pandu's case
(cited 1 supra) and the petitioners are also eligible for
payment of compensation on par with the patta
holders.
33. The Division Bench of this Court in Special
Collector's case (cited 20 supra), held as follows;
"27. Thus, from a careful analysis of the decisions of this Court in
Mekala Pandu (supra) and B. Narayan Swamy (supra), it is evident that
assignees of government land are entitled to payment of compensation
equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benefits at par
with the full owners of the land even in cases where the assigned lands
were taken possession of by the State in accordance with the terms of the
grant notwithstanding the fact that such resumption was for a public
purpose. Therefore, the legal position is that assignees of government land
are entitled to compensation at par with the pattaholders. This legal right
of respondents No. 1 to 27 was not given due recognition by the appellants
all along.
34. As per settled law, in Mekala Pandu's case (cited 1
supra) and also the Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in Special Collector's case (cited 20 supra), the
petitioners are entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with the
private patta holders in their respective villages
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
@ Rs.5,65,000/- per acre and the respondents have to
pay the said differential amount to the petitioners.
35. In view of the above findings, both the Writ
Petitions are disposed of declaring that the petitioners are
entitled to receive ex-gratia on par with the private patta
holders of their villages @ Rs.5,65,000/- per acre and the
respondents are directed to pay the differential amount
with accrued interest by excluding the amount received
by the petitioners in respect of the lands situated in their
villages i.e, Yelgoi Village, Jharasangam Mandal and
Mungi Village, Nyalkal Mandal of Sangareddy District,
which were procured for the purpose of National
Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ), Zaheerabad,
within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
SK,J
W.P.Nos.25832 of 2018 and 31482 of 2023
36. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in
these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SARATH, J
Date: 06.06.2024
sj
