Disposed

Yedla Kishtaiah v. State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021WP/13110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought declaration and payment of compensation for land acquired but withheld due to a title dispute with an impleaded respondent. The Court, noting that the matter had been referred to the appropriate authority under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, refrained from expre

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the authority constituted under Section 76 of the Act directed to take a decision expeditiously. No interim order for payment was passed.

Yedla Kishtaiah Vs State of Telangana and 5 others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13110 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Yedla Kishtaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged about 60 years Fl/ o lVuthireddygudem, H/o Raigir, Bhongir lt4andal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue at Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The District Collector, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶12

The Joint Collector, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶13

The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Bhongir, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶14

The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶15

Smt. Chelimeal Balamani W/o. Yadagiri Aged 61^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Ir/uthireddygudem, H/o. Raigir, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagagiri District.

¶16

(R6 is impleaded as per C.O. Dt. 1311212021 in l.A.No.2/2021)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^{may be pleased} to issue a Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, more^{particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not^paying compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired to the extent^of Ac.1.18 lz guntas in Sy No. 266 ol Raigir Village,^{Bhongir Mandal,Yadadri} Bhuvanagiri District, for the^purpose of^{"excavationof gravity canal in the limits of} Raigir Village from Klvl 46.500 to 48.000^(part of^{KaleshwaramProject)} (Dr B R Ambedkar Pranahitha Chevella Sujala Sravanthi)", as bad, arbitrary^and contrary to the very^provisions of Right to^Fair Compensation^{& Transparency in} Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement^{Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and} rules made thereunder and also offends Arts.^{'14, 2'1 and 300-Aof Constitutionof} lnd ia.

¶19

IA NO: 10F 202'.1

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleased to direct}

¶21

the Respondents to forthwith pay the award amount (compensation) in respect of the land to the extent of Ac.1.18^y2 gunlas in Sy No. 266 of Raigir Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s M. VIDYAVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI C. KUMAR

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON,BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶27

WRIT^{PETITIONNo.13110of 202L}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition^{is filed to declarethe action of respondent} Nos.1 to 5 in^{not paying the compensation to the petitioner for the} land acquired^{to an extentof Ac'1 18% gts in Sy No 266 of Raigir} village, Bhongir^{Mandal, Yadadri Rhuvanagiri District' for the} purpose of "excavation^{of gravity canal in the limits of Raigir village} fiomKM46.500to48'000(partofKaieshwaramProject)(Dr.B'R' Ambedkar Pranahitha^{Chevella Sujala Sravanthi)" as bad'arbitrary} and contrary^{to the very provisionsof Right to Fair Compensation} & Transparency^{inLand Acquisition' Rehabilitation and} Resettlement^{Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') and Rulesand made} thereunder and^{also offends Articles74' 21' and 300-Aof the} Constitution^{of India.}

¶30

Petitioner^{contendsthat he is the owner of land admeasuring} Ac.5.30^{gts in Sy' No.266/A, out of which' the respondentsby} issuing notification^{soughtto acquire Ac l1 B % gts under the Act} 30 of 2O13;^{that even in the declarationissued under Section 19(1)} of the Act on^{04.07.2079,the petitioner'sname is shown in respect} of the saici^{acquisition;and that despite showing the petitioner as a} pattadar of the tand,^{the respondents are not paying compensation} lbr the land^{beingacquired on the pretext of aliegedclaim made by} responclent No.6'^{The learned Counselfor the petitioner further} contends that^{the 6e respondenthaving failed beforethe Special} Tribunal which^{had rejected her claim to the land'vide order dated} 06.O2.2O21, is^{only seeking to deny the petitionerfrom receiving}

¶31

¶32

the compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the land acquired.

¶33

Learned Government pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent No.6 would submit that the respondents white passing the Award dated lZ.OZ.202l had taken note of the title dispute pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and since the said authoritjr courd not have taken a decision thereon, referred the matter to appropriate authority under Section 76 of the Act 30 of 2O13.

¶34

Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents would further submit that the appropriate authority has been constituted by the State Government, vide G.o.Ms. No.119 dated 10.12.2021, and since a reference has already been made to the said authority, the same would be decided by the said authority after considering the claims of the respective parties.

¶35

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and considering the fact that the appropriate authority is now in place, this Court is of the view that it should refrain from expressing any view on ttre rival claims of the parties as any view expressed by this Court would influence the decision making authority. Therefore, since a reference under Section 76 of the Act is made in respect of the land of the petitioner, the authority constituted under Section 76 ol t]ne Acr 30 of 20i3 shall take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible, as land has been acquired bv the respondents under the award.

¶36