Allowed

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022WP/11689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order sets aside impugned Land Acquisition Awards and Section 19(1) declarations due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the 2013 Act. The court granted liberty to the respondents to issue fresh declarations, conduct necessary inquiries, and complete the exercise within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Awards and Section 19(1) declarations set aside; liberty granted to respondents to issue fresh declarations, conduct inquiries, and complete the exercise within two months.

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF I,4ARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 11689 AND 23984 OF 2021

¶7

WP NO: 11689 OF 2021

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others, S/o A. Ram Reddy Aged 40 years, occ. Agriculture (All the petitioners are residents of Vattem Village, Bijinapally lVlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana - 5o9215).

¶10

A. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o A. Eshwar Reddy Aged 73 years, occ. Agriculture

¶11

A. Sugunamma, Wo A. Sudhakar ReddyAged 69 years, occ. Agriculture

¶12

R. Venkalram Reddy, S/o. R. Shekar Reddy Aged 37 years, occ. Agriculture

¶13

A.Mohan Reddy, S/o A.Eshwar Reddy Aged 70 years, occ. Agriculture

¶14

A.Vijayamma, W/o A.Mohan Reddy Aged 65 years, occ. Agriculture

¶15

A.Pushpalatha, W/o A.Narsimha Reddy Aged 38 years, occ. Agriculture

¶16

Ragi Ram Reddy, S/o Ragi Pedda lValla Reddy Aged 70 years, occ. Agriculture

¶17

Ragi Chennamma, W/o Ragi Ram Reddy Aged 66 years, occ. Agriculture

¶18

Ragi l,4adhava Reddy, S/o Ragi Ram Reddy Aged 40 years, occ. AgricLrlture

¶19

Ragi Jayapal Reddy, S/o Ragi Ram Reddy Aged 38 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶20

Ragi Govardhan Reddy, S/o R.Ram Reddy Aged 42 years, occ. Agriculture

¶21

Ragi l,4adhav Reddy, S/o Ragi Keshava Reddy Aged 46^years, occ. Agriculture

¶22

14.T.Nirmala, W/o K.Ram Chandra Reddy Aged 38 years. occ. Agriculture

¶23

Ragi Vijayamma, W/o R.Shekar Reddy Aged 57 years, occ. Agriculture

¶24

R.Venkat Ram Reddy, S/o R.Shekar Reddy Aged 36^years, occ. Agriculture

¶25

Ragi Rajender Reddy, S/o P. Bal Reddy Aged 45^years, occ. Agriculture lB.Yedula Bharatamma, W/o Y. Ir/egha Reddy Aged 61^{years, occ. Agriculture}

¶26

19.Ragi Srinath Reddy, S/o R. lr,4ohan ReddyAged 30^{years, occ. Agriculture}

¶27

20.Tudi Krishna Reddy, S/o T. Ram Reddy^{Aged 53 years, occ. Agriculture}

¶28

21.Tudi Venkat Reddy, S/o T Ram Reddy Aged 60^{years, occ. Agriculture}

¶29

22.R. Shwetambari Reddy, W/o R. Uttam^{Kumar ReddyAged36 years, occ.} Agriculture

¶30

23.Tudi Yadi Reddy, S/o T. Ram Reddy^{Aged57 years, occ. Agriculture}

¶31

24.Ragi Lokanath Reddy, S/o R. Mohan Reddy Aged 29 years, occ. Agriculture 25. Ragi Anjan Reddy, S/o R. Krishna Reddy Aged 55 years, occ. Agriculture 26. Reddy Reddy Sunitha, W/o Ranjith Reddy Aged 55 years, Occ. Aqriculture 27.Ragi Bal Reddy, S/o R. Ram Reddy Aged 65 years, occ. Agriculture

¶32

Ragi Alivelamma, W/o R. Krishna Reddy Aged 70 years, occ. Agriculture

¶33

(All the petitioners are residents of Vattern Village, Bijinapally lvlandal, Wagarkurnool District, Telangana - 509215).

¶34

...PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (L.A and J.A), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶37

The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶38

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

¶39

The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkunrool, Telangana.

¶40

The Special Deputy Collector, (L.A ) PRIIS Unit-ll & R.D.O. Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkurnool.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropnate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature WRIT OF I\IANDAIVUS, declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in passrng the impugned Awards viz. Award No. 1/2020 dated 22-05-2020 Award No, 3/2020 dated 01-06-2020 Award No.412020 daled 22-05-2020 and Award No.6/2020 dated -05-2020 for acquisition of Petitioners lands in Vattern village, Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district, based on invalid Section 19(l) declarations, without disposing our objections given under Section 15(2), and without a whisper of Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements in both the Declarations and the impugned Awards, and proceeding to dispossess us from our lands and livelihoods in violation of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Act 21 of 2017 and rules made therein, as illegal, u nconstitutio na I and consequently set aside the impugned Awards d1.22-05-2020 01-06-2020 22-052020 and -05-2020 and 19(1) Declarations published on 27-12-2018 09-08-2019 25-12-201 B and 03-01 -201 9.

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Awards vide Award No.1/2020 daled 22-05-2020; Award No 3/2020 dated 01-06-2020; Award No.4/2020 daled 22-05-2020 and Award

¶45

No.6/2020 dated -05-2020 for acquisition of lands of the petitioners in Vattern village, Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district, while staying all further consequential proceedings including taking possession of the subject lands of the Petitioners herein, pending disposal of the majn Writ Petition.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. N S ARJUN KUMAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents: SPL. cP FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶48

WP NO: 23984 OF 2021

¶49

Betwee n :

¶50

R. Uma Reddy, W/o.R. Randheer Reddy ,Aged 63 years, Occ. Agricutture, 2. N. Lakshmamma, W/o N. Venkat Reddy Aged 62 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶51

R. Venugopal Reddy, S/o Pedda Nagi Reddy Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶52

K. Purnima, W/o K. Chakridhar Reddy Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶53

K. Chakridhar Reddy, S/o K. Jangi Reddy Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶54

(AIl the petitioners are residents of Vattem Village, Bijinapally l,4andal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana - 50921 5)

¶55

...PETITIONERS

¶56

AND

¶57

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (L.A and J.A), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶58

The State of Telangana, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶59

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

¶60

The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkurnool, Telangana

¶61

The Special Deputy Collector, (L A ), PRLIS Unit-ll, and R.D O. Nagarkurnool Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkurnool

¶62

..,RESPONDENTS

¶63

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courl may be pleased to rssue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more padicularly one in the nature WRIT OF N/ANDAIVUS, declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in passing the impugned Awards viz. Award No. 112020 daled 2210512020. Award No.6/2020 dated -05-2020 and Award No.412020 daled 2210512020 for acquisition of Petitioners lands in Vattem village, Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district, based on invalid Section 19(1 ) declarations, without disposing our objections^given under Section 15(2), and without a whisper of Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements in both the Declarations and the impugned Awards, and^proceeding

¶64

to dispossess us from our lands and livelihoods in violation of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 as amended by Acl 21 of 2017 and rules made therein, as illegal, uncon stitution al and consequently set aside the impugned Awards dt.22-05-2020 and -05-2020 and 19(1) Declarations published on 27-12-2018.25-12-2018 and 03-01-2019

¶65

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶66

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the impugned Awards vide Award No. 1/2020 dated 22-05-2020. Award No.6/2020 dated -05-2O2O and Award No.4l2O2O daled 22-05-2020 for acquisition of lands of the petitioners in Vattem village, Bijinapally mandal, Nagarkurnool district, while staying all further consequentiat proceedings including taking possession of the sub.ject lands of the Petitioners herein.

¶67

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. N S ARJUN KUMAR

¶68

Counsel for the Respondents: SPL. cP FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶69

The Court made the following:

¶70

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY} WRIT PETITION Nos.^{11689 and 23984 ol 2O2L}

¶71

coMMON ORDER:

¶72

As a common^{issue is raised in both the writ petitions,} they are taken^{up together and being disposedof by this} common order.

¶73

Heard the learnecl^{counsel lor the pelitloners and the} lcirlncci Spccial^{(lovernmc'nr Plcadcr appearingon behall-oi rht:} learnccl Adclitional^{AclvocateGcnerallor the respondentsWith} their conscltt,^{rhe s'r'it petirionsare disposedol at the aclmisslon} stage

¶74

In these ua-it^{petitions, the petitionerschaller-rgethe acLion} of the respondents^{in passing the impugnedAwards uide Au'ard} No.1/2020 dated^{22.O5.2020; Award No 3/2020 i^"0} Ol.06.2020;^{AwardNo.4/2020dated 22'O5'2O2O;and Award} No.6l2O2O dated^{Ni1.05.2O2O for acquisition of the lands of the} petitioners situated in^{Vattem Viliage,BijinapallyMandal'} Nagarkurnool^District.

¶75

The main^{ground on s'hich the petitioners sottghtto sct} :rsiclc thc^{irnpttgncci Alvirrcls is th:'it Llle clcclltraLiollsr'tltclc:}

¶76

Section 19(l) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and. Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act) are invalid as the same were passed without disposing of the objections of the petitioners under Section 1S(2) of the Acr and u,ithout conducting Arvard enquiry under Section 23 ol the Act.

¶77

The learned Special Government pleader, on instructions, submitted that the impugnecl Au,ards and the procecdings o[ rleclararior-rs under Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compcnsation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13, may be set aside grantin! liberty to the respondents to issue fresh declarations duly putting the petitioners on notice. The rearned special Government Pleader assures that the petitioners will be allowed to participate in the Award enquiry and necessary orders would be passed strictly on merits.

¶78

Considerir-rg the facts and circumstanccs ol.the case and the sLrbmrssior-rs macle l:v thc lcarnccl Spccial Cor,crnmcnt Plcader, both the u,rit pctrtions al.u ailu\.ecl setting arside thc ilnpr:lnccl r\rr,errds as u.cll as rhe cleclat.ations Ltncler Scctron i9(1) ol the Acr granting libertl. to the respondents to iniri:1te

¶79

¶80

the proceedings afresh from the stage of proceedings uncler Section 1 9(1) of the Act duly purring the petitioners on notice and passing necessary orders and Awards in consonance with the provisions of the Act. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall take into consideration the provisions of the Act under Sections 26 and 2g while passing the Awards. Having regard to the fact that the impugned Awards have been set aside twice, the respondents shall endeavour to complete the entire exercise within a period ol two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶81

Thc misccllancous petitions pending, if any, shall sranci closed. There shall ite no ordcr as to cosrs.

¶82

To,

¶83

Sd/- R. KARTHIKEY AN ,TRUE COPYII ASSISTANT REGISTfr AR Cr/ SECTION OFFICER

¶84

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (L.A and J.A), State of -^{Tetangana Secretariai euiloings,u-yj;aba";.'} 2. The^principar secrerary, rrrigatL; ;;; a;;;;"prrtment, state of reransana, Secretariat Buitdings, flyOeLbad.^{-- - '- vvl} ^ .1. I ne Commissioner, Rehabilitation and Reset,ement, Government of .^{Telangana, Buddha Bhavan,} fyOeianaO'-"""'" 4. The District Coltector, Naga;ku;;;iDltrict, Nagarkunroot, Tetanqana.

¶85

rhe Speciar Deputy coleitor, (L A ), pHlrs L;;[]i #;.b.Eli.l3[ri*,."", Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkuinooi

¶86

2 CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, 2 CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, S Arjun Ki,rmar, Arjun Ki,rmar, Ki,rmar, Advocate [OpUC][OpUC]

¶87

2 CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, 2 CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, CCs to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, to Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, Sri. N S Arjun Ki,rmar, S Arjun Ki,rmar, Arjun Ki,rmar, Ki,rmar, Advocate [OpUC][OpUC] 6 Two ccs to Advocate Generar, Higr, corrii",. it-," strt" of rerangana. [oUT] 7. fwo CD Copies.

PN/ \x. \J/

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310312022

6q<br>d :< as MAB 2022
*

¶92

COMMON ORDER

¶93

WP.Nos.11689 & 23984 ot 2021

¶94

Allowing the WPS Without costs.

¶95

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Traders and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Boddu Lingaiah and 4 others Vs Union of India and 3 others

Chakali Ramulu and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society Vs The Registrar Registrar of Societies, Red Hills

N Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Muthuam Rama Krishna and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and 5 Others