Allowed

Y. Narsimha Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WP/24452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Collector to refer the matter to the LA R&R Authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The court held the Collector was not justified in rejecting the late application, considering the delay was due to the time taken for compensation release and pandemics excluded by the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to forthwith refer the matter under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to the LA R&R Authority within four weeks.

Y. Narsimha Reddy, 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

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24452 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y. Narsimha Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Aged about 65^years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o H.No. 1-53/1 , Gopanapally, Serilingampally lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District500084.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue^Department (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

The Land Acquisition Officer / RDO, Rajendranagar Division, Ranga^Reddy District

¶14

...RESP.NDENT'

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.² to^{3 in} not^{referring the} matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for deciding the correct market value of the land in^pursuance of the award^No. 1/Ltu1260lGPNPl2O16 dated oBlo7l2119^passed by the 3rd respondentⁱⁿ respect of the petitioners land in Sy.No. 170 to an extent of Ac.514 Sq.yards situated at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy Districtas} illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the^provisions of^{LandAcquisition Act} 2013, violative of^principles of natural^justice and^{consequentlydirectthe} respondents to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority by considering the objections dated 1810812022ⁱⁿ respect of the above mentioned^land

¶16

IA NO 1 0F 2023

¶17

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^praying that in the circrmstances stated in the affidavit^{filed ln supportof the petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to direct^{the respondents to refer the matter to the Land Acouisition Rehabilitation} and^{Resettlement Authority constituted under section51 of} the Act by considering^{the representation/ petition dated 181O812022,per-rding disposal} of the main^{Writ Petition}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:M/s. E. SUBHAVATHI}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Respondents: GPFOR LANDACQUISITION}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

Jre*

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI^{SUDHEER KUMAR} WRIT PETITION No.24452 of 2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel lor the^petitioner and^learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition

¶25

This writ petition is liled sceking a writ^{of mandamusto} declare the action of respondent^{Nos.2 and 3 in not referring} the matter to the Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitation and} Resettlement (LA R&R) Authority under Section 64 of^the Right to Fair Compensation and^{TransparcncyinLand} Acquisition, Rehabilitatior-r and Resettlement^{Act, 20 13 (for} short, 'the Act, 2013J for hxation of^{propercompensation} pursuant to the Award No.l/l,A/ 1260lGPNPl2016, dated O8.O7 .2019, passed by respondent^No.3 in^respect of^{the land} admeasuring 514 sq. yards in Survey^No.170 situated^at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga^Reddy District, as illegal and arbilrary.

¶26

The subject Iand admeasuring 514 sq.^{yards belongingto} the petitioner was acquired and an Award,^{dated Oa.O7.2Ol9,} was passed by respondent No.3 awarding^anamount of Rs.99,84,467/ - towalds compensation^{lor the said extent}

¶27

BI ,a'

¶28

¶29

of land. Ho',^,ever, the said amount was not rek asccl in f:rvour of the p(ititioner and it is only throuqh lcttcr in Lr.No LlLA/ 1260/2/cPPl2016-10, dated 03.03.2021, orders rvere issucd for payment of compensation amount in terms of the Au'ard, dated 08.07.2019. Thereafter, the amoun:_ \4'as paid to Lhe^petiti(rner only on O2.O5.2O22 through C rcqu:e bearing No.532370.^{There is} no dispute about the date of pass;ing of the Award and actual^payment of amount to the petitioner. 1'hercaflter, the^petitioner made a request for referr ng thc miltter under Sectiorl^{64 of the} Act, 2013 by submitting zrn application dated 18.O8.2022 before respondent No.3 and tre same u.as also acknowlcdgcd^by the ofhce of respondent No.3 on the same day. There is also no dispute about submis;sion of representation^{by the petitioner} and acknowledging the same by the ofhce of^respondent No.3. However, no action has been 121ken^{by respondent No.3 pursuant} to the request macte by the petitioner. Hence, the^petitioner approached this Court by filing the present^{writ petition.}

¶30

lrarned Government Pleader for Land Ac<luisition submitted that the^request of the^petitioner was not considered because the said representation was submitted by the pr:titioner

¶31

¶32

belatedly and beyond the^{period prescribed under Section} 64 of the Act, 2013.

¶33

5- This Court, having taken note of the Award as^well as the date of payment of the amount,^is of the^{consideredview that} respondent No.3 is not^justilied in not referring the^matter under Section 64 of the Act, 2O13 for the following^reasons:

¶34

(il Admittedly, the amount was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the Award, dated 08.O7.20 19, only on 02.o5.2022.

¶35

(ii) Though a formal Award was passed on OA.O7.2Ol9, it is only on O3.O3.2O21, respondent No.3 issued the proceedings providing lor release of the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

(iiil Thus, it is only on 03.03.202 1, the Award under

¶37

. Section 23 read with Section 33 of the Act, 20 13 has become final.

¶38

Further, the Honble Apex Court, taking note of the Covid- 19 pandemic situation, passed orders in RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION1 and thereby excluded the period commencing from 15.O3.2020 ttll 28.02.2022 from computing

¶39

| (2022) 3 scc 1t'1

¶40

¶41

¶42

thc pcriod of limitation provided under the 'a rious statutes. hr the c.onsrdered view of this Court, the petitiont:r rs very much entitlcd for the benefrt of the said order passed by thc Hon,ble Apex Court. If thc said orcler is applied and the perrod from 1:;.03.2()20 Lill 29.02.2022 is excluded, the requesr made by the petitioner is well within the period of six ntonths. Evcn other'"vise, under second proviso to sub_section (2. of Section 64 ol thc ,{cr, 2013, the District Collector s c,tnferrcd with discrc tio;.r to consider the applications sutrmittecl after the' expiry of the period prescribed under firsl proviso and rs competent to make a reference within a furt 1er period of one year.

¶43

In the considered view of this Court, it is a fi ! case, where the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under second proviso to sub'section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, 2013. BJ, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, especially the fact that the petitioner was paicl compen sation only on Or1,.05.2O22, this Court is of the consjderc,cl view that this is a fit case, where the matter can be referred urrder Section 64 of the Act, 2013, in the light of the reasons given hereinabove.

f. ry

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to forthwith take steps for referring the matter under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to the LA, R&R Authority in terms of the request made by the petitioner through his representation, dated 18.O8.2O22, as expeditiously as possible at any rate preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this rvrit petition shall stand closed.

¶49

assr8rDl$ivn?3,EfRtR I //rRUE coPY// sEcrtoN d?r,".*

¶50

To,

¶51