Disposed

R. Usha Sree v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/24348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of authorities to act upon land acquisition applications for enhanced compensation submitted on 05.04.2022. Acknowledging the applicants' delay, the Court considered a Supreme Court order excluding the pandemic period from limitation calculations. Finding the submissions well within limit when excluded, the Court direc

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 directed to take appropriate steps to refer the petitioners' claim under Section 64 of the Act and to complete the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy.

R. Usha Sree Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTETUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2434A OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'l . R. Usha Sree, W/o_ R Pradeep Janagon, Aged about 40 years, Janagon Village and District.

¶9

R. Surendar Reddy, S/o. I\rloobula Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶10

R. Ram Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Venkata narsi Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Janagon, Janagon Dislrict.

¶11

R. Desamanth Reddy, Sio Venkata narsi Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶12

G. Yamuna, Wo. Sudarsan, Aged about 45 years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶13

C. Rajamahendar Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Janagon, Janagon District-

¶14

K. Raja Sunandha, W/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶15

C. Raja Sulochana, Wo. Venkat Reddy, Aged about SO years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶16

K Rajitha, Wo. Ravindar Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Janagon, Janagon District.

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

2 The District Collector, Janagon and Janagon District.

¶21

3 The Land acquisition Officer cum SPL.DY.Collector RDO, Janagon and Janagon District.

¶22

4 The Special Cotlector (Land Acquisition), Janagon District.

¶23

5 The Joint Collector, Janagon District.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

i I .L

¶26

.,"---.. --r^{-,JA:ri;;:,;;{'}-- -t::.;-.;-Jt&E"r,-i.ai&&}irr.r

¶27

Petition under Alicle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia p'ayirg that in the circumstances state( in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig I Oourt may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction rnore particu larly c nr: ir .he nature of Writ of ll,4andamus, dr:claring the action of the respondents in rtc I C,)lrsidering the representations dt. 05-C4-2022 rrade by the petitioners tJls {.;4 )' the Act for referring the matter before the competent authority as rll.gitl, :rbitrary and Violative of Article 2'1 and 300-A of the Constitution of ndia rnC contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparr:ncy irr t_and Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R:settlement Act, 30 of 2013 and consr:q rert y direct the respondents to refer tre matter before the competent au hority

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶29

Petition under lection^'1 51 CPC praying that ln tle ctrlums:ernces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Oourt niry lrt> pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated O:j-O4.2022 made by the petitioners.

¶30

Counsel for the Petiti,)ners: SRI P.NARASIMHULU

¶31

Counsel for the Resp,rndents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISI] ION

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.24 348 of2023

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondent authorities and an award was passed vide proceeding No. C/ I 95 | / 2OlZ , dated 3 1 .05 .2021 and the petitioners were pard compensation in terms of the said award. Having no[ been satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the said award, the petilioners claim to have submitted individual applications, dated 05.O4.2022 seeking reference to authority under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13 (Act 30 of 20 13) for enhancement of the compensation awarded. However, the said applicatibns were not acted upon by respondent No.3. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by hling the present writ petition.

¶37

On O1.09.2O23, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Government pleader for Land Acquisition to get instructions in the matter. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,.learrred Government pleader for Land

¶38

¶39

Acquisitior-r c,n instrlrctions. sublnitted tl at thr' pcrilio:rcrs again su[:nLitt.ed applications lurdcr Sec:t ion 64 oI the Act on 11.O4.202.2, n.hi<:h is bevoncl thc rerio,l ol six (6) months of Lirnitation ars prescribcd uncicr Scct on 64 of the Act and tht:refore [hc applications srrbmir tr cl bv the petitioners ,vt:re not consiriered bv responrlent !r'.3

¶40

¶41

On bt:irrg asked bv this Court, lr:ir^{-r-rr:d (.,r>vr:t} nmcrtt Pleader for Land Acquisition subrnittecl Lhat l)ilrsLrant to the impu 3ned orcler, the pctition,rrs \r cr(: paid compensati:n on 2O.1l.2O2l.ln terms ol clausc' (lr) liection 6a (1) of th : Act, the petitioners are reclu ircd t o su bmit an application within six (6) ',veeks from the dzrte ot' rr,r:eipt of Irotice from the Coilector under Section 21 ol t lre l\ct or within six 6) months lrom the date o[ Colle:t,rr'r; alr,ard which ever period shall first expire. In the i ls talr, case, notice under Section 21 of the Act was rroI serrr-.rl upon the petitioners. Therefore, six (6) months period woulrl app1y. Under the rroviso to sub-section (2) of Sectiorr 6.1 of the Act, the Collector is conferred r.i,ith thc po^'er r,, c ltertain an applicatiolr even after expiry of the abo;e sa cl pc-jod, for a further p( riod of one vear il he_1g-sgtisii.:d thal there r.r,as

¶42

¶43

sufficient cause for not filing such application within the period specified under the first proviso.

¶44

Be that as it may, the Honb'le Supreme Court had taken note of the Covid-19 pandemic has been pleased to exclude the period commencing lrom 15.O3.2020 to 28.02.2022 from computing the period of limitation, by an order dated lO.Ol.2022 in the case of IN RE

¶45

COGNTZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONI.

¶46

Admittedly, the applications, dated 05.04.2022 were received by respondent No.3 on II.O4.2O22. If the period from 15.O3.2020 to 2a.O2.2022 is excluded in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applications submitted by the petitioners are well within the limitation period of six (6) months.

¶47

¶48

In the above circumstances and a-lso taking into consideration that the Collector is conferred with the power to relax for a period to one year, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to direct the respondents to refer the matter under Section 64 of the Act for hxing appropriate compensation.

1 (20221 3 SCC r17

\-<br>

.::

a<br>

7 . Accor drngly, the^{ivrit pe trtion is dispose'1 rllirecting} respondenl No 3^{to take appropriatesteS's for r':fe -rllrg thc} claim of tlre^{petitioners made througl-r aplll c'(ic'ndated}

¶57

05.O4.202t', to the Authoritl'^{underSectiorr 64 of thc Act,} ancl to conLplete thc^{same r,l'ithin a perio'l oll;r'r(4) u'ecks} from the date of^{receipt of a copy of this orde - Thcre sl-rall} be no orde^- as to^costs.

¶58

As a sr:quel, Miscellaneous^{Petitior s, if arn' pending,} shall stanc closed.

¶59

^.Ji3i'R..?ttt:sfl'jil^/ //TRUE^COPYI/ l;Eo'r''loN^oFFtcER

¶60

" To, " "",-"^:" ; it?fl*,j ftrffi{#;:',"5fi^{tl'':'.,' -.} "^{l"'"' he s'ia'ie'r} t tru,,"i1i;,i+m:,p-uh',#-d' 8. Two^{CD Cc Pies} BSR cLp Ys-

HIGH COURI'

DATED: 11lDtrl2023