Kummari Pentaiah vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1323 Tel

Telangana High Court

Kummari Pentaiah vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2025

Author: P.Sree Sudha

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                     I.A.No.2 of 2023
                             IN/AND
             APPEAL SUIT No. 300 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 5768

days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated passed

in O.P.No.176 of 2000 by the learned I Additional District

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

reasons stated for condoning the delay are that the

respondents made a requisition for acquiring certain

extents of lands for straightening of boundary of Export

Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP), Pashamilaram Village,

Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and they acquired

Ac.34.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.109 to 116, 148 and 149 of

Pashamailaram Village, Patancheru Mandal. The

petitioners and others are small farmers and illiterates and

they have no other land except the land which is acquired

by respondents. The Officers visited the site in the year

1994 and gathered all the farmers and made a proposal to

provide alternate land in exchange of lands sought to be

acquired. Accordingly they entered into an agreement and

the Officers issued proceedings No.DW/D10/EPIP/94,

dated 24.01.1995 and asked the respondent No.6 to send

proposals for exchange of lands as communicated by the

Chief General Manager. Thus, petitioners agreed for

acquisition of their lands. These proceedings were brought

in their hands by way of I.A.No.911 of 2001 in O.P.No.176

of 2000 and the same was allowed. The Officers deviated

the entire proceedings and issued 4(1) notification dated

24.02.1996 and they acquired their lands and they

seriously objected the same. There was no proper advice

given to them to approach this Court after confirmation of

the award without recording proper evidence and thus

there is a delay of 5768 days.

3. The award amount of Rs.7 lakhs is still lying in the

District Court. The award was passed prior to the order of

this Court on 09.09.1998. No enquiry was conducted by

the authorities. I.A.No.911 of 2001 was allowed on

13.12.2001. During the pendency of the writ petition,

there was reference under Section 31(2) by the respondents

and the O.P was disposed on 28.02.2007. Therefore,

requested the Court to condone the delay.

4. In a counter filed by respondent No.2, he stated that

I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed to condone the delay of more than

15 ½ years in filing the appeal against the judgment and

decree dated 28.02.2007 in O.P.No.176 of 2000 without

any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the

stipulated time is not maintainable in law. Upon the

requisition made by the then APIIC for establishment of

export, promotion industrial park at Pashamailaram

Village, Ac.34.00 gutnas was initiated by publishing Draft

Notification dated 04.03.1996 and it was published on

06.03.1196 as early as on 09.01.1996 and the LAO passed

the award in proceedings No.C/1026/1995, dated

09.09.1998 awarding a compensation of Rs.15,000/- per

acre with statutory benefits. The necessary amounts were

also deposited by the Corporation. There were disputes

among the claimants and the matter was referred under

Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the I

Additional Districts Judge, Medak and it was numbered as

O.P.No.176 of 2000 and the learned District Judge

confirmed the award of the LAO dated 09.09.1998 on

28.02.2007.

5. He further stated that W.P.No.20461 of 1996 is filed

by M.Paramayya and 26 others challenging the notification

was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.1999 but not

disposed on 13.11.1998. W.P.No.10069 of 2016 filed by

present appellants questioning the acquisition proceedings

and award of LAO dated 09.09.1998 after 20 long years

from the date of publishing the Section 4(1) notification

and 18 long years from the date of passing of award

without any justification. There is no material placed by

petitioners before the reference Court with regard to the

exchange of land and petitioners are continuing in

possession by cultivating and enjoying the same and the

possession taken on 16.11.1998 is only paper possession

are incorrect. Possession was taken on 16.11.1998 under

cover of panchanama and mutation of the name of the

Corporation was also effected in the revenue records

including Dharani. The acquired land was also developed

and allotted to the entrepreneurs and constructed

respective industries and also doing business. The LAO

awarded a price of Rs.15,000/- per acre and it shows that

the petitioners were not in possession, as such petitioners

are not entitled for benefits under Section 24(2) of Act

No.30 of 2013 for allotment of alternative lands in view of

the acquired lands. The Five Bench of the Apex Court in

Indore Development Authority Vs Manohar Lal 1 held

that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Act

No.30 of 2013) is totally untenable and contrary to the law.

I.A.No.3 of 2023 is beyond the scope of relief of appeal itself

and not maintainable in law. Therefore, requested the

Court to dismiss the application.

6. In a reply affidavit filed by appellant No.1, he stated

that a reference was made by LAO on the ground of

receiving the compensation but not inter se dispute among

2020 (8) SCC 129

claimants. During the pendency of the writ petition, an

award was passed by the LAO on 09.09.1998. The Writ

Petition No.20461 of 1996 was disposed with a direction on

03.11.1998. There is an agreement between Respondent

Corporation and appellants on the ground of alternate land

proceedings issued on 20.12.1994 and 24.01.1995,

demarcation and survey was completed and the land was

yet to deliver to the appellants. In the meanwhile,

notification was issued on 24.02.1996 and appellants

raised substantial issues. The appellants filed I.A.No.911

of 2001 and the documents are very crucial, the

application was allowed. In the meanwhile, the award was

confirmed on 28.02.2007, as such the purpose of filing the

I.A.No.911 of 2001 was defeated. Therefore, requested the

Court to allow the application.

7. A reference was made under Section 31 (2) of the

Land Acquisition Act as there were disputes among the

claimants but refused the compensation amount awarded.

The trial Court observed that no documents are filed by the

petitioners regarding alternative lands to them and

accordingly confirmed the award of the LAO dated

09.09.1998 on 28.02.2007. I.A.No.911 of 2001 was filed

before the trial Court for summoning certain documents

regarding the alternative lands and it was allowed on

13.12.2001. It is stated by the petitioners that suit is

disposed of without receiving the documents and thus the

purpose of filing of I.A.No.911 of 2001 was defeated. The

I.A. was allowed in the year 2001 and the award was

confirmed in the year 2007. The possession of the

claimants was protected as per the correspondence dated

20.12.1994. It was clearly mentioned that claimants

prepared to give land in exchange of equal land from out of

the lands ear-marked for housing purpose abutting to

Pashamailaram Village. They further stated that they do

not require any monetary compensation for the land they

would give to the Corporation. In a letter dated 04.02.1995

addressed to the Chief General Manager, APIIC Limited, it

was mentioned that "the land which we have envisaged to

be given to the pattedars in exchange for proposed

acquisition of land for straightening of boundary of EPUIP, is

a leveled land abutting to the Pashamailaram Village and

the soils structure is fantastic for construction purpose."

8. A perusal of the said correspondence clearly shows

that they agreed for exchange of the land to the pattedars

herein. In O.P., 28 claimants are there and out of them

eight (08) claimants preferred this appeal i.e., claimant

Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17 and 24 and the remaining

claimants are added as respondent Nos.3 to 22. It is a

peculiar case in which the Corporation intended to take

over the land of the farmers from the beginning for

developing and for setting industry. From the beginning,

the claimants/farmers clearly state that they want

alternative land but not monetary compensation, even then

the LAO fixed up the compensation @ 15,000/- per acre.

Though alternative land was identified and when it is about

to give to them, Government issued 4 (I) notification and

deprived them of alternative land. They approached this

Court through Writ Petitions and the reference was also

made against the award of the LAO to the I Additional

District Judge and it was observed by the trial Court that

the correspondence regarding alternative equal land was

not filed by the claimants and thus they are only entitled

for compensation. In fact they filed the I.A. to summon the

documents and it was allowed way back in the year 2001,

but without taking necessary steps to get the documents,

disposed of the O.P and thus the disposal of the O.P is

patently erroneous. No doubt, the petitioners herein

preferred the appeal but approached the Court with a delay

of more than 15 ½ years and they stated that they are poor

farmers and there was no advise for them to approach this

Court, but they already approached this Court by way of

Writ Petitions as such the contention that they have no

knowledge to prefer an appeal cannot be accepted.

However, technicalities should not defeat the deserving

remedy to the petitioners herein. They relied upon

judgment reported in Mohammed Abdullah (Died) Vs.

Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad 2. In this case,

the matter was preferred after 13 years of passing of the

award and the delay was condoned and the matter was

1998 4 ALD 568

remanded back to make enquiry by providing an

opportunity to both the sides.

9. This Court finds that it is just and reasonable to

condone the abnormal delay of 15 ½ years on costs of

Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the District

Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy within one

week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

10. The matter is remanded back to the I Additional

District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy with a specific

direction to summon the documents in I.A.No.911 of 2001

and to dispose of the O.P. by duly giving an opportunity to

both sides and on hearing both sides within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the

parties and counsels are directed to cooperate with the

Court for disposal of the same within the stipulate time.

Registry is directed to send the record along with copy of

the order to the Said Court within 10 days from the date of

this Order.