Dismissed

P. Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2023WP/14305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed by petitioners seeking Mandamus for directing Respondent No.2 to refer land acquisition award dispute to Respondent No.3 due to delayed consideration. Court observed application needs to comply with proviso to Section 64 of RFRARACT 2013 regarding grounds for delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to make a fresh application within three weeks; Respondent No.2 to consider same within three weeks thereafter.

P. Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|^32s2 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14305 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Srisailam, S/o Sri P. Balaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R:/o H. No.3-4-14111, Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga Reddy District, T.S. 2. Sri Cheera Raju, S/o C. Sudsarshan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o H. No. 18-7-526168, SRT Colony, Kandikal gate, Hyderabad - T.S.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND'1. The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 5OO 022.

¶12

The District Collector cum -Land Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Kongarakalan, R.R. District, T.S.

¶13

The Chief Commissioner, Land Acquisition Office, ln the Compound of Survey Settlement Office, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad - 500 002. T.S.

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to an appropriate Writ or Order or Orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for not considering petitioners several representations to refer the matter to the Respondent No.3 is quite unjust and against law

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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 direct the Respondent No.2 to refer the matter to Respondent No.3,^pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Otherwise the Petitioners will be^put to irreparable loss and injury.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. T V RAJEEVAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.14305 OF 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents.

¶23

The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follorxrs:

¶24

"to pass an appropriate Writ or Order or Orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for not considering petitioners several representations to refer the matter to the Respondent No.3 is quite unjust and against law and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances o[ the case-"

¶25

Learned Govcrnment Plcader brings to the notice of the Court that tht: representation of the petitioner, dated O2.O3.2O23, addressed to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, does not give reasons for the delay in filing application seeking relerence.

¶26

It is specifically averred by the petitioners at

¶27

paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the aflidavit as under:

¶28

I further submit that I have purchased an Open Plot in Suney no.22 / AA, EE, admeasuring lo0sq. Yards or equivalent to 83.6 Sq. Mtrs., out of Ac.4-OO

¶29

¶30

Guntas, situated at l(atedhan Villagc, GHMC, Rajendranagar Circle, Hyderabad, Telangana State by palnng an amount of Rs.10,0O,OOO/- and the Respondent No.2 under Proceedings No.C/78O of 2O 15 dal-cd 13.02.2019 acquired my land for expansion of existing czunpus of SVP National Police Academy by paying meagre Compensation i.e., lesser than thc sale consideration shown in the Sale Deed dated 05.03.2016 and also lesser than the Market value a,nd passed an Award and paid Compensation amount of Rs.5,16,486/- and I received the Compensation under Protest and also wrote a Letter to the Respondent No.2 on 02.o3.2022 and 1 1.O8.2O22 re spectivety, requcstin g to refer the matter to the Rcspondent No.3, but the Respondent No.2 went on assuring the petitioner No.l that they will refer the mattcr to the Respondent No.3, but in vain.

¶31

3 I further submit that the petitioner No-2 was a-lso purchased on Open Plot in survey No.22/AA, EE, admeasuring lOO Sq. Yards or equivalent to 83.6 Sq. Mtrs., out of Ac.4-OO Guntas, situated at Katedhan Village, GHMC, Rajcndranagar Circle, Hyderabad, Tclangana State by paying an amount of Rs.10,O0,O00/- and the Respondcnt No.2 under Proceedings I{o.C/780 of 2Ol5 dated I3.02.2O19 was also acquired thc Petitioner No.2 for expansion of edsting carnpus of SVP National Police Academy by payrng meagre Compensation i.c. lcsscr than the sale consideraLion shown in the Sale Deed dated 09-03.2016 and also lesser than the Market value and passed an Award and paid Compensation amount of Rs.S,16,486/- and the Petitioner No.2 also received the Compcnsation under Protest arrd also wrote a lctter to the Respondent No.2 on 13.08.2019 and 13.O8.2O2O and on O2.O3.2O22 and I l.Oa.2022 rcspcctively, requesting to refcr the matter to the Rcspondent No.3, but the Respondent No.2 went on assuring my the Petitioner No.1 that they witl refer the matter to the Respondcnt No.2, but in vain."

¶32

¶33

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition brings to the notice of the Court that in the event the petitioners make a detailed representation as per proviso to Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in l,and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rcsettlement Act, 20 13 giving reasons pertaining to delay clearly explaining the cause for not filing the application seeking reference, within the period as stipulated under the Act, to the Competent Authority, the same shall be considered by thc Compete nt Authority i.e., Respondent No.2 within a reasonable period.

¶34

The relevant portion of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2O13 reads as

¶35

under:-

¶36

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referrcd by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the arnount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlemcnt under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons intercstcd:

¶37

Provided that thr. Collcctor shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of reccipt of application, make a referencc to the appropriate Authority:

¶38

¶39

Providcd further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case rnay be, requesting it to direct the Collcctor to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

¶40

(2) The application shall statc the grounds on .;*,hich objection to the award is taken:

¶41

Provided that cvery such appliciation s;hall bc rnaCc--

¶42

(al if the person making it was prescnt or rcpresented bcfore the Collcctor zit the timc^q,hen hc made his award, rvithin six wecks from thc clatc. Of t.hc Collccto|s award;

¶43

(tr) in other cases, u.ithin sir lvecks of the rccciiri oI thc notice from the Collcctor undcr section 21, or within six months from tl-re date of the Collectors aw'ard, whichever period shall first expire:

¶44

PrSyr4gd &U$gr ,!bq!__$e _As!!99!qr__aqal 94!_e_r!qin aq appUcat&,n 3.1[tqrl!he _,g]rpgy_gf lLe___ga_d pE{9.4, E1!!!4 4 fuft@ is satisfi€d that,lhere_fvjls tu$gen!s!t.Uge&rn9t-fiU4C lt^{w-iqb!Lt!.q_p-e,i{2dqpgqlfrg!!i4} the _nrSllrqvisr,,'l

¶45

Taking into consideration the said submission of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the Writ Petltion is disposed off directing the petitioners to make a fresh application within a period of three {O3} Weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order as per proviso to Section 64 (referred to and cxtracted above) and respondent No.2 shall consider the sar:oe in accordance to law within a period of three (O3) weeks thereafter.

¶46

¶47

With thc above observati{)ns, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶48

However, there shall be tro ordcr as to costs-

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶50

Petition, shall stand closcd.

¶51

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSTSTANTiEGTSTRAR //TRUE cOPYtl (_JD

¶52

SECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500 o22.

¶55

The District Collector cum -Land Acquisition Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Kongarakalan, R.R. District, T-S.

¶56

The Chief Commissioner, Land Acquisition Office, ln the Compound of Survey Settlement Office, Nampally Station Road Hyderabad - 500 002. T.S.

¶57

One CC to SRl. T V RAJEEVAN Advocate IOPUC] E Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

¶58

Two CD Copies KKS GJP oy

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610712023

ORDER

g 3'fA.11-
1
'\ 'r'
L,
.b
c [t []s N8
.o ' x ,1/-I'
i l)1 ,) : rrl l<br>

¶63

WP.No.14305 of 2023

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

J
r?) s-'
D
9C, \1 <br>

P. Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

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

V. Narshima Rao Vs The State Of Telangana

DrJ.M. Gurunath Vs The State Of Telangana

Shaik Mohammad Ali , Mohammad Ali Vs The State of Telangana and 16 others

Maremreddy Prathap Reddy and 12 others Vs The State of Telanana and 4 others

Smt. G. Aruna Vs The Joint Collector

Kandula Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana