Allowed

Gaddampally Radhakrishna Reddy and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC8 Dec 2021WP/15571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an acquisition award under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. Holding that no proper award enquiry was conducted and rehabilitation provisions were ignored, the Court set aside the award and directed the authorities to initiate proceedings afresh within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Award dated28.06.2019 and declaration underSection19(1)dated29.06.2017 set aside; liberty granted to initiate proceedings afresh from Section19(1).

Gaddampally Radhakrishna Reddy and 4 Others Vs The State… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANAHYDERABAD}

¶2

(SPecial Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{EIGHTH DAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 15571 0F220}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gaddampally^{RadhakrishnaReddy,} .S/o^{GaddamoallvMohan Reddv' Age 45} ' ;;;,'o:;rbu'tio" nlitiiriil';;-Fv;'H-Nio' 1-2' Kbru(onda' Bijinepallv rvlandal' 'N;; ;k;;;di Diitrrct-"soe^{z t s.}

¶9

Gaddampally^{Sulochana, W/oGaddampallyRadhakrishna Reddy' Age 44} vears. Occupation.^{ntiiluriuiJ, n17oiL.rtoit-2, Karukonda, BijinepallyMandal'} i'lagarkurnool^{District-509215}

¶10

Gaddampally^{Amba Reddy,S/o Gaddampallytr/ohan Reddv'Age 48 years'} occuoation. nqn"rririJl''Ry-;.i.N"l-),'-(rrukonda,^{Bijinepally Mandal,} Nagaikurnool^{District -5092'l5.}

¶11

4,Gaddampallylndira,W/o.GaddampallyAmbaRedcjv.Aoe4lVears.occupation' - x;;;;i;I;'h6.ii.Nj" i:i,-Kr",.i,io[oj]eijin",r1y tr/and;l, Nas'arkurnoolDistrict - 509215.

¶12

5 i:JJ,ipiiio".-Agriculture' L4edioalli Vamshi^{Krishna, R/o. S/o H No Medipalli 14-348/8' NarsimhaR R} Reddy, Colony, Age Behind²⁶ APHB,years, Nagaikurnool-509209.

¶13

...PETlTloNER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of^Telangana ,Principal^{Secretary,Revenue-(Land Acquisitio.n)} D;;r-ri;;;t, reiinEana^{secieiaiiat' sth Flcjor,BRKR Bhavan' AdarshNagar'} Hyderabad,^{Telangana-500063}

¶16

2 TheStateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipaIsecretarylrrioationandCommand Area Devetopment^{oepartm[ni'i;j"g'i";54J"]etriiii,'stn-rtoor,BRKR Bhavan,} Adarsh Nagar,^{Hyderabad, Telangana-SuuuoJ'}

¶17

3 The Commissioner,^{Rehabilitation and Resettlement' Governmentof Telangana'} Buddha Bhavan,^HYderabad.

¶18

4 TheDistrictCollector-LA,NagarkurnoolDistrict,ErstwhileMahabubnagarDistrict, T.S,

¶19

5.SpecialDeputyCollector.LA,NagarkurnoolDistrict,ErstwhileMahabubnagar District. T.S.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under^{Article 226 oI the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased} toissueaWrit,orderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof Mandamus, declaring^{the Award No,06 of 2019 vide ProceedingsNo.G 1/2645/2016,} dt.28/06i2019^{passed by issuing notices under Section37(2) of L A' R Act' 2013'} vide File No.8/2990/1/2016,^{dl.29lo7l2O2Oby the special Deputy collector, L A} PRLIS Unit-ll,^{Nagarkurnool,afterthe lapse of the entire acquisltionproceedings} pursuanttoSection25oftheRighttoFairCompensation,TransparencyinLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation^{and ResettlementAct,2013(LA Act' 2013) wherethe}

¶22

{

¶23

Award was^{passedpursuantto declarationvideGazetteN0.52/2017'dated} 2gto6t2o17 after^{2 years, without any provision for Rehabilitation and Resettlement'} violatingthelawofequalitybypayinglesscompensationundertheGeneralAward than other consent^{Awards,and without considering petitioners objectionsdated} o5togt2o17.08/03/2019,^{08/04/20',l9 and11to112019as illegal, arbitrary, in violation} of several^{provisions, including Sections 11 to 37 amongst othersand especially} Section 25 and 26 of the^{Right to Fair Compensation, Transparencyin Land} Rehabilitation and^{Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act' 2013)and} Acquisition, consequentlytoquashandsetasidetheAwardNo.06of20l9videProceedings No.G1/2645/2016,^{dt.28.06.20'19passed under Section37(2)of L'A R Act' 2013'} byissuingnoticesvideFileNo.8/29901112016,d|.2gtoTt2o20passedbytheSpecial Deputy Collector,^{L.A PRLIS Unit-ll , Nagarkurnoolas having lapsed under Section} 25 of the LA Act^20'13.

¶24

IAN 10F 020

¶25

Petition under section^{151 cPc prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to grant} Stay of all further^{proceedings vis-a-visthe Award No.06 of 2019vide Proceedings} No.G1/2645/2016,d1'2B.06.2019passedunderSection37(2)ofL.A.RAct,2013, by issuing notices^{vide File No.8/29901112016, d1.29.07.2020passedby the special} Deputy collector,^{L.A. PRLIS Unitll & RDO, Nagarkurnoolsituated at Karukonda} Village of Bijinepally^{Mandal,of NagarkurnoolDistrict ErstwhileMahaboobnagar} District, including^{dispossession of the petitionersfrom lands in sy.Nos.11,11laal1'} 301et1,34t1,30,^{31 & 34, as notified in Award'pending disposalof the above Writ} Petition and^pass

¶26

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: Smt. B RACHNA REDDY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents^{No. 1} ,^{4, & 5 : GP FOR REVENUE (TG)}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents^{No. 2 & 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION}

¶29

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^T.VINODKUMAR

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.15571 of²⁰²⁰

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed challenging^{Award No.6/2019 in File} No.GU2645l2016, dated 28.06.2019,^{and vide notices underSecction} 37(2) ot the Right to^{Fair Compensationand Transparenry in Land} Acquisition, Rehabilitation^{and Resettlement Act, 2013,as amended by Act} 2L of 2017 (for short,^{'the Act'), videFile No.B/2990/1/2016,dated} 29.07.2020^passed by the^{respondent authorities,for acquisltion of} petitioners lands situated at Karukonda^{Village,BijinapallyMandal,} Nagarkurnool District,

¶34

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitionersandlearned Additional} Advocate General appearing^{for the respondents.With their consent, the} Writ Petition itself^{is taken up for hearingand disposalat the stage of} admission.

¶35

3, The petitioners contend^{that the impugned Award waspassedby} the respondents^{without provlding for rehabilitation and resettlement} entitlement,asrequiredundertheRighttoFairCompensationand Transparency in^{Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,} 2013,asamendedbyAct2lof20lT,andalsowithoutconsideringthe objections filed by^{the petitionersunder Section15(2) of the Act and} without conducting^{award enquiry under Section23 of the Act'}

¶36

When the Writ Petition^{is takenup for hearing, learned counsel for} the^{petitionerssubmitted that, in similar circumstances,this Court'in} W.P.No.13242 of^{2020, vide order, dated 29'07'2021, was pleasedto set} aside the Award^{passed in respect of similarlysituated lands in thesame}

¶37

¶38

village and directed^{the respondentsthereinto conduct fresh enquiryas} contemplated^{undersection 19 of the Act, duly putting the petitionerson} notice and^{passnecessaryorders and Award in consonancewith the} provisions of the Act. It^{is fufther submitted that thoughthe Awards} passed therein are dated^{07.05,2019and 16'05'2019' while in the present} Writ Petition,^{the Awardimpugnedis dated 28'06'2019' but the fact} pattern is the same and^{no enquiry was undeftaken by the respondents} before^{passing the said Award.}

¶39

5.LearnedAdditionalAdvocateGeneralappearingfortherespondents would fairly concede^{to the fact of this Court disposingof W'P'No'13242} of 2020, videorder^{dated 29.07.2021, by settingaside the Awardunder} challenge as^{well as declarationsunder Section 19(1) of the Actby} granting libefi to^{the respondentsthereinto initiate proceedingsafresh} from the stage^{of proceedings under Section 19(1) of the Act'}

¶40

Having regard^{to the submissionsmade and sincethe petitioners} are also similarly^{placedand for reasonsalike as were statedin the order} dated 29.07.2021,^{passed in W.P,13242 of 2020,the present Writ Petition} is allowed, the^{impugnedAward, dated 28'06'2019as wellas declaration} under Section^{19(1) of the Act dated 29'06'2017 is set aside and the} respondents are^{granted liberty to initiateproceedingsafreshfrom the} stage of^{proceedingsunder Section19(1) of the Act' duly puttingthe} petitioners on notice and^{pass necessaryorders and Award in consonance} with the^{provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 by affording an oppoftunity of} hearing. It is^{needless to mentionthat the respondentsshall take into} consideration the^{provisionsof the Act underSections26 and 28 of the} Act, while^{passingthe Awards. The respondentsshallendeavour to}

¶41

¶42

complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the

¶43

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the

¶45

light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶46

SDA MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI nsstsr2TrREGlsrRAR //TRUE coPY//

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

¶49

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana ,Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Telangana Secretariat,sth Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063

¶50

The Principal Secretary ,State of Telangana, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, sth Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500063.

¶51

The Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Government of Telangana, Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶52

The District collector-LA, Nagarkurnool District, Erstwhile IVahabubnagar District, T.S,

¶53

Special Deputy Collector-LA, Nagarkurnool District, Erstwhile Mahabubnagar District, T.S.

¶54

One CC to SRl. B RACHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. lourj

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

One Spare Copy

IVMA SW

.rI-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811212021

ORDER

WP.No.15571 of 2020

*v- S{riTA ':.-t
,i
r.1
l[}l ?08
,,.;
,ri_-

¶65

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

Gaddampally Radhakrishna Reddy and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddampally Radhakrishna Reddy and 4 Others v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Venu Gopal Vs State of Telangana and 3 others

Nuthakki Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

B.Kondal Rao Vs The State of Telangana

K.Vittal Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Ganpati Sugar Industries Limited Vs National Highway Authority and 2 Others

Kondeti Chandrasekar Vs Kondeti Veera Apparao