The High Court allowed the writ appeal, holding that Article 226 cannot be exercised to quash orders of a judicial tribunal and set aside the Single Judge's direction for a fresh land compensation award.
Set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 02.04.2008; dismiss W.P.No.28504 of 1996; allow the Writ Appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.// ../
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
l33rl l
WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 756 OF 2008
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 2.4.2OO8 and made in WP.No.2B504 of'1996 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP
AND
Syed lmaduddin, S/o.Late Mir Mahiuddin, Rep.by his GPA Syed Jameeluddin S/o.Syed lmaduddin, Ryo.204-550/1 /A, Khilawath Mubarak, Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WAMP. NO: 1594 OF 2008 ) Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to grant the stay of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.2B5O4 of 1996 dated 2.4.20O8.
Counsel for.the Appellants: SRI SUDARSHAN MALUGARI
Counsel for Respondents: NONE APPEAREO
wP NO.28504 0F 1996
Between:
Syed lmaduddin, S/o.Late Mir Mahiuddin,
....PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in Forest Appeal No.1/93 dated 24.10.1995 on the file of the District Judge and award of the Forest Seftlement Officer, Mahabubnagar made in RCA No.120/93 dated 20.10.1993 and quash the same and further declare that the respondents are bound to issue a notification for acquisition of the land as directed by Hon'ble HC in W.P.No.12457 of 92 dated 23.04.1993 and to calculate the compensation taking the value as on the date of notification.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SYED SHAREED AHMED Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: GP FOR FORESTS
The Court made the following: JUDGEMENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE UIJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.756 of 2008
IIIDGMENT, A.tth. Hon'bht). Cbitllkik UjiatBttrr,n)
Heard Mr. Sudershan Malugari, learned Govcrnment
Pleader for Forests representing the appellants.
2
3
above land of Syed Imaduddin was taken over by the State for intrusion in reserve forest de the order dared 03.02.1949. In tiea thereof, cultivable land to the extent of Acs.300.00 guntas in Survey Nos.17 and, 52 of Karkal Pahad Village, Kalavakurthi Taluk of Mahabubnagar District rvas allottcd to Syed Imaduddin uide the award dated 22.02.1951 passed by the Forest Setdcment Officer. But,.it was alleged that possession thereof was not handed over to him. In the meanwhile, it was stated that even the allotted land of Acs.300.00 guntas was not available being in possession of some other person. Therefore, award dated 22.02.1951 passed by the Forcst Setdement Officer for giving land compensation could not be given effect to Therefore, writ petitioner sought for cash compensadon. Irarned Single Judgeyide the order dated 23.04.1993 directed the Fore st Settlement Officet as well as the Joint Collector of Mahabubnagar District to take up the matter in terms oF Section 10 of the A.P.Fotest Act, 1.967 @riefly 'thc Forest Act) and after
t:4
making eoquiry, to pass necessary award for payment of cash compensation rn lien of land to the extent oF Acs.293.05 guntas in Survcy Nos.17 and 52 of I{arkal Pahad Village. \X/h ile the writ petitioner was directcd to file his claim within one month, the authorities wcre directed to determine the compensation and to pay the same to the writ petitionelurithin six months thereafter.
5
the view that writ petitioner could not prove that land admeasuring 4cs.942.26 guntas belonging to him was taken over by the Forest Department. After thorough analysis of all aspects of the matter, Forest Setdement Officer passed the award hdated 20.10.1993 in the following minner:
6
directed in the judgment dated 23.04.7993 in W.P.No.12547 of 1992 of F{igh Courq Hyderabad. 2. In addition to the market value, solatium at the rxe of 30oh on tfie amount of market value is payable under sub-section 2 of Section of L.A.Amendment Act.
7
So, the total cash compensation payable is worked
out as follows:-
| 1 | Marketvalueoftheland@ fu.25,/-peracreflor 293.05acresofland |
7,326.25 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 30%osolatiumover thcamount Rl7,3?6.25 |
2,197.81 |
| 3 | Total'ofmarket valueinduding3070 solatiumi.e.,(1+2) |
9,524.12 |
| 4 | 4%ointerestperannumontheamountof Rs.9,524.12from03.02.1939to3O.04.1982(43 years2monthsand27dzys) |
16,475.08 |
| l | 97ointcrestonRs.9,524.12foroncy,carfrom 01.05.1982to30.04.1983 |
857.17 |
| 6 | 1570interestonRs.9,524.12from01.05.1983to 31.10.1993(10 yearsand 6months) |
15,000.51 |
| 7 | 12ohaddittooalmarket valueF,eranoumon Rs.l,326.25 the marketvalueofthe landextent 293.05acrcsfrom10.05.1982to31.10.1993(11 yearsand 6months) |
10,'110.23 |
| 8 | Totalcompcnsationdcterminedtobeawarded fortheland measuring 293.05acres |
5t,967.11 |
Keeping in view of the above calculation in rcspect of market value 307o solatium, interest at 4%,9% nd 15oh as admissible in the Principal and Amended L.A.Act znd 12oh additional market value over the market value of the total extent of land. I determined and awatded (Irline hundred sixty seven only) as total cash compensation to be paid to land owner Sri Syed Imaduddin, S/o Mir Mohiuddin, R/o Hyderabad in one installment.
The DFO Mahabubnagar, who is thc respondent in this case is made responsible for making payment of the above said amount of Rs.51.967/- to the awardee on or before
8
31.10.1993 keeping in view of the direction of the High Court in W.P.No.12547 /92 dtred 23.04.'1993.
11,. Aftet adverting to the rival pleadings and grounds urged, the Appellate Court formulated the following points for consideration:
1 . Whether the market value taken by the Forest Setdemcnt Officcr is not correct ? and,
out by the Appellate Court that the Forest Setdement Officet had acquired the land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 @rie fly the 'LA Act' hereinafter) and provisions thereof including Section 4 would applt, nliltad* matandis. Appellatc Court found From the record that
::9
notification under Section 4(1) of the I-A Act was issued in 1339 F alsi i.e., in 1.949. There[ore, for all intent and purpose, the proceedings had lapsed. However, the High Court had directed the Forcst Settlement Officcr to pass a fresh award. Recording the contention o[ the rvrit petitioner that he was holding land to rhe exrent of Acs.942.25 guntas, it was pointed out that after enactmcnt of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, not to speak of 4cs.942.25 guntas, writ petitioner could not even hold land to the cxtent of Acs.293.05 guntas. Bc that as it may, whatever be the extent oF land, the samc was taken over by the Government as per G.O.Ms.No. 1 6 datcd 03.05.1 949.
'13. Appellate Court further held that once notification under Section 4 of the LA Act u'as issued, the writ petitioner or his father ceased to be owners of the land so acquired. Market value had to be determined as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 oF the [-A Act. Upholding the award, Appellate
:: l0::
Court dismissed the appcal vide the order datcd 24.10.1995. k was thereafter that W.P.No.12457 of 1992 came to be filed.
1.4. Learned Single J udge proceeded on the basis that the original pattedar Syed M.ir.Mohiuddin held land to the extent oF Acs.942.26 guntas in Survcy No.46 of Edvelli Village, which rvas acquired by the Forest Dcpartmcnt on 03.02.1.949. Though an extent of Acs.293.05 guntas s,as given as land compensarion, the same u/as not delivered to rhe pattadar; subsequent comPensation paid was only tirr the said land. Therefore, learned Single J udge idc thc orcier dated 02.04.2008 sct aside the otdet of the Forest Settlement Officer datcd 20.10.1993 as well as the order of the Appellatc Court dated 24.10.1995 and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry tegarding payment of compensation for an extent of Acs.942.26 guntas and pass a fresh ordcr in accordance with law.
::11 ::
17 . Be that as it may, following such direction of this Court fresh award came to be passed by thc Forest Setdement Officer on 20.10.1993. This award rvas assailed by the writ pe titioncr in appeal before thc learncd District Judge, Mahabubnagar ln
:"12t:
Fotest Appeal No.1 of 1993. By thejudgment and order dated 24.10.1995, the appeal was dismissed.
:: 13::
Judgeis whollyuntenable and cannot be sustained both in law as
rvcll as on facts.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending i[ any, stand
closed.
SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT-SEGISTRAR //TRUE CoPY// ( I SECTION OFFICER
To,
'I . One CC to Sri. Sudershan Malugar, Advocate, TOPUCI 2. One CC to SRl. K V SATYANARAYANA Advocate TOPUCI 3. One C to SRl. SYED SHAREED AHMED, Advocate tOPUeI 4. Two CC's to GP FOR FORESTS,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad 5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP >/-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810212023
JUDGEMENT
7
i +=s<br>*
WA.No.756 of 2008
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.
B "o-<br>tu/4o
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash a judicial order passed by the District Judge.
Whether the Single Judge correctly directed a fresh award for compensation for the original extent of land despite lapse of proceedings.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
District Judge, Mahabubnagar
Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar
Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar
Government of AP.
Syed Imaduddin
Ujjal Bhuyan
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
