Telangana High Court
Jageeri Parshaiah, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.12309 of 2009
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under the Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking following relief:
" ...to issue a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Order
or Direction declaring the action of Respondent in not
considering the applicatin dt 912006 made by petitioner
seeking reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
as illegal and arbitrary by setting aside the Memo dt
342007 in Memo No E/414/2005 on the file of the
Respondent and to consequently direct the Respondent to
refer the application dt 912006 made by petitioner to
competent civil court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition
Act for determining proper compensation in respect of the
acquired lands of petitioner Award costs..."
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the
material on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring
Ac.1.02 guntas in Sy.No.174 situated at Arepalli Village,
Karimnagar Madal and District. The respondent herein has
::2::
SK, J
acquired the land of the petitioner by issuing notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
brevity 'the Act'), subsequently, passed Award dated
21.11.2005 for the purpose of laying new B.G.Railway Line
from Karimnagar to Nizamabad. In view of the compensation
determined and fixed by the respondent herein in Award dated
21.11.2005 as meager, the petitioner made an application
dated 09.01.2006 to the respondent herein. On the ground of
expiry of stipulated time period, the respondent herein rejected
the application of the petitioner in Memo No.E/414/2005 on
03.04.2007. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition and requested to allow
the writ petition by setting aside the Memo No.E/414/2005
dated 03.04.2007.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contentions relied upon the Judgment passed by the High
::3::
SK, J
Court of Madras in Karunakaran and Ors. Vs. Land
Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector 1.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the
respondent submits that notices were issued under Section
9(3) & 10 of the Act to the interested persons on 11.12.2002
and conducted enquiry by the then Land Acquisition Officer
and an Award was passed on 21.11.2005 vide Award
No.7/2004. On that date of Award, the petitioner received the
amount under protest, but, not filed any application within six
(06) weeks from the date of receipt of the Award. The date of
the Award was 21.11.2005 and the petitioner has to file
application on or before 01.01.2006. But, the petitioner has
filed application under Section 18 of the Act on 10.01.2006
and the same was time barred, then the respondents rightly
rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. In
view of the above facts, there is no valid ground to allow the
writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
MANU/TN/7696/2021
::4::
SK, J
6. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire material
on record, this Court is of the considered view that the
respondents acquired the land of the petitioner and for the
same an Award was passed on 21.11.2005 in Award
No.7/2004. The petitioner received the Award amount under
protest as per the averments made by the respondents in their
counter at Para No.3. The present impugned orders are
passed on the ground that the petitioner has made application
after six (06) weeks i.e., on 10.01.2006.
7. In fact, the petitioner has received the Award amount
under protest as per counter filed by the respondents. The
contentions of the petitioner is that it is settled law that once
an Awardee received the compensation under protest, the duty
of the Land Acquisition Officer is to refer the matter to the
Civil Court under Section 18(2) of the Act without any formal
application.
8. The Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner squarely apply to the instance case and the relevant
::5::
SK, J
portion of the Judgment passed by the High Court of Madras
in Karunakaran and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer &
Sub-Collector (supra) at Para No.6 is as follows:
"6. Though the award was passed on 11.08.2009, the
petitioners received 80% of the compensation amount under
protest on 08.09.2008 and the balance 20% of the award
amount was also received by them under protest on
13.01.2011. Though the petitioners made request on
03.03.2011 for reference under Section 18 of the Act, from
the above judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is clear that even without a formal
application, if the land owner expresses his protest or dis-
satisfaction to the award of compensation, the authority is
under an obligation to refer the matter to the Court under
Section 18(2) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be contented that, without a formal application,
reference cannot be made to the Civil Court for enhancement
of the compensation.
9. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has received
the amount under protest. The duty upon the Land
Acquisition Officer is to refer the matter to Civil Court under
Section 18(2) for enhancement of compensation. Now, the
respondents cannot deny the rights of the petitioner on the
::6::
SK, J
ground of delay of nine (09) days. In number cases, this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed orders in liberal
approach for technicalities. Therefore, the respondents have
to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the
compensation in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner.
10. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed by setting
aside the Memo No.E/414/2005 dated 03.04.2007 on the file
of the respondent, consequently, directing the respondent to
refer the application dated 09.01.2006 made by the petitioner
to the Competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 28.03.2024
spk
