The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging land acquisition for a road project, holding that the grounds raised had already been decided in earlier proceedings and the award had become final. Petitioners holding small extents could not stall the project.
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.
3256 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD[ (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
l.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022
IN/AND
W.P.No.1 6342 of 2021
AND
Wr Nos mn 233 3a 2 20 1 3 ! I 34 37 97 41 1 am 3 4 20 2
Between:
WRIT PETITION NO: 163420F 2021
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the DECLARATION videNo.G21241912O18 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of aboutAc. 3.22 guntas and an extentof about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Villageand an extent of Ac. 0-12 gutrtasand an area of 34,061.59 sqyards landin lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms. No. 1B, dated1 3.08.2019, as illegal,and against the principles landdown in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as againstthe Article 300(A) of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently, setaside the same,and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendationof the 6th respondent hereinand stick on to theproposal of roadbeneaththe High{ensionlines,or direct the 3rd respondent togive fresh opportunityto the all concerned land lords to be heard andpass ordersjudiciously or alternatively,direct the respondentsto pay the compensation at the rate ofpresent market price @20,000per sq. yard, by acquiring the plots of the individual effectedparties as it is in its actualsize without leaving the corners of the saidplots.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No.G2l241912018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,06.1 .59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.
J
!A :1 2022
Between:
Pashmylaram Notified Gram Panchayat lndustrial Areas Services Societv. Registered PNGPIASS, tndustriat Ar6a,pashamylaram, SanoaieaOv-Oiilii"t Bep. .by.Sgqqlary,.P. Satyanarayana, S/9 Nages'waranao,igea idoui sij viars. ' Occ: tndustriatist, Address: fto! NoJQs,pJras6 - 3, TSilC thOisiriiipait-,- '---' Pashamylaram, Sagaredy District, T.S. - S023Ol.
AND
...Petitioner/Respondent No.7
...Respondents/Petitioners
...Respondents/Respondents
4
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 appoint an advocate commissioner to assist this Hon'ble court to make local inspection of the existing road with reference to 4 approved layouts and also to bring the fact that the proposed 150 feet road of the 4th respondent is not required and that too at the huge cost of the state government which can avoided.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section I 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to initiate necessary perjury proceedings against the 14th respondent i.e., Superintendent Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Sanga Reddy andpunish him for his false deposition in his counter affidavit.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L, PRABHAKAR REDDY
SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT/ SRI. C. HANUMANTHA RAO
N NO:20606 OF
q P?11?_9]Eryl? .Bgqav, .S/o.KotiReeddy Aeed 27 years, bci. eusi;ess,R/o .ljoyl'tgppurqlr-rvtlage,Machavarammandal, Guntur District.
AND
...PETtTtoNER(S
5
.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus dury declaring the DECLARATToN vide No.G2l2419l2o,t8 dated o3to6t2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about '16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Vi[age and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.S9 sq yards land in lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019, as i[egar, and against the principres rand down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as weil as against the Articre 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequenfly, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price @ 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.
6
IANO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No.21241912018 dated 031OG12021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22guntas and an extent of about 16,941 squareyards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac.0.12guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sqyards land in lsnapur Village.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS,SENIOR COUNSELFOR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5& 6: SR! L. PRABHAKAR REDDY sc FoR Tsllc
Counsel for the Respondent No.7:SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
PETITIO 23303
7
Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District
Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of tndia drr}t?t3}'f;T: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the declaration issued vide No.G2t241gt2o1g, dated: 0310612021 under section 19(i) of Act. 30 of 2013 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac 3-22 gts and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Virrage and an extent of ac o-12 gts and an area of 34,061.5g sq. yards land in lsnapur village as well as the G.o.Ms.No.1g, dated- 13t0812019, as illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetflement Act, 2013 as well as against the Articre 3oo (A) of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High tension lines.
202
Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of the decraration vide No.o212419r201g, dated: 03-06-2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac:3-22 gts and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor village and an extent ot Ac: o-12 gts and an area of 34,061.59 sq. yards land in lsnapur Village.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRt HARENDER PERSHEAD SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.s & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY
SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
It
WRIT PETITION NO:27984 OF 2021
Between:
AND
...RES'.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 o'f theConstitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriateWrit, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions todeclare the actionof the 3rd respondentin issuing the notice in No.B3/8264/2018dated 05.1o.2021requiringthe petitioners to receive the compensationalready determinedbasing on the award dated O4.1O.2O21 on account of acquisitionof their lands in Sy.No.228lAfu2and 228lAAl116 of Kardanoor Village, PatancheruMandal, Sangareddy District,to set aside the awardproceedings dated04.10.2021 and to directthe 3rd respondent to act in accordance with law.
:1OF
Petition under Section1 51 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affiddvit filed in support ofthe petition,the High Court may be pleasedto suspend the notice issued by the3rd respondent in No.B3/8264/2018dated 05.10.2021, issued under Section37 (2) of Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitationand ResettlementAct, 2013, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counset for the Petitioners: SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA
Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL
9
WRIT PETITION NO: 33000 OF 2022
Between:
...PET!T!ONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the DECLARATToN vide No. G212419t2018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an. extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 1 6,941 square yards in Kardanoor Viflage and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards rand in rsnapur viilage, as weil as the G.o.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019, as irregar, and against the principles rand down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against the Article 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequently, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent herein and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price @ 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.
t0
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 stay the operation of the DECLARATION vide No. G21241912018 dated 03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKARREDDY SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRASHEKARREDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
WRIT PETITION NO: 34624 OF 2022
Between:
Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o KVenkatappaR5rd!Y,Aged 57 years, occ.^Private Employee, Flat No. 201 ; Plot No.242lC,Nithyas Pride Apartment, AddaguttaSociety, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
...'ET'T'ONER
AND
O. Thi: Ti:langana State lndudtrial lnfrastructure CorporationLimited(TSllCL)' Zonal Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.
Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus dury declaring the DECLARATToN vide No. G2t2419r20.r8 dated 03t06t2o21 tor acquiring the rand to an extent of about Ac. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about
II
'16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac.0.12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 131o812019, as irlegal, and against the principles land down in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as against the Article 300(4) of the constitution of lndia, and consequently, set aside the same, and further direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6tl respondent herein and stick on to the proposal or road beneath the High-tension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to he heard and pass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of present market price arias 20,000 per sq. yard, by acquiring the prots of the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.
IA 't oF
Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased preased to stay the operation of the DECLARATTON No. c2l241gl2o18 dated 0310612021 for acquiring the land to an extent of about Ac.3.22 guntas and an extent of about 16,941 square yards in Kardanoor Viflage and an extent of Ac. o.l2guntas and an area of 34,061 .59 sq yards land in lsnapur Village.
counsel for the Petitioners: sRr VEDULA sRrNrvAS, sENIoR couNsEL FoR
SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY
SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
N 37697
Between:
ffi i!!5..1tit1,Y,Miik,?I,%h?lifi;"1iif##s:#J""ifli.e".""3,11',i113ifu,,, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court maybe pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature ofMandamus duly declaring the DECLARATION vide No.G2l2419l2O1Bdated03.06.2021for acquiring the land to an extent of aboutAc. 3.22 guntas and an extent of about '1 6,941 square yards in Kardanoor Village and an extent of Ac. 0- 12 guntas and an area of 34,061.59 sqyards land inlsnapur Village, as well as the G.O.Ms.No.18' dated 13.08.20'19, as illegal, and against theprincipleslanddown in Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as well as againstthe Article 300(4) of the constitutionof lndia, and consequently, set aside the same,and further direct the respondentsto consider the recommendation of the 6threspondent hereinand stickon to the proposal of road beneath the Hightension lines, or direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the all concerned land lords to be heard andpass orders judiciously or alternatively, direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the- rate of present marketprice @ 20,000per sq.yard, by acquiringthe plotsof the individual effected parties as it is in its actual size without leaving the corners of the said plots.
I3
lA NO: I 22
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 respondents not to disposses the petitioner from his land vide an extent of 200 square yards situated in plot number 713 in survey number 416, situated in SurvayVamshi Layout, lsnapur,patancheru Mandal, Medak District.
counsel for the Petitioners: sRr VEDULA sRlNrvAs, sENloR couNSEL FoR SRI. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRt HARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GEN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
o
Between:
Egtlhqp,Ngveer1Goud, S/o R.Venkaiah Goud, a/a 47yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-2411, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Seritingimpaity, n. n. Oiitiiii.---'
AND
PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus deciaring (a) the Dectaration No.G2l241gt2018 dt.o3to6t2o21 for acquiring the land to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. yds., in lsnapur village as well as G.O.Ms.No.l8 dt.13.08.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principtes of
l4
Land Acquisition Act 2013 as well as against Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same (b) direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the high tension lines or (c) direct the 3rd respondent togive fresh opportunity to thepetitioner and all concerned land lords to be heard and alternatively direct the respondents topay compensation @Rs. 30,0001 per sq.yd.by acquiring theplots of the effectedparties
:1OF 2O22
Petition under Section'151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court maybe pleased to stay the operation of declaration No.G21241912O18dt.03/06i2021 for acquiring the land to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. Yds.,in lsnapur Village pendingdisposal of the present writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C.N. MOORTY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to 4: SRIHARENDER PERSHEAD, SPECIAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5& 6: SRt L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRIR. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
WRIT PETITION NO: 419A5 0F 2022
Between:
R. Naveen Goud, S/o R.Venkaiah Goud, a/a47 yrs ,occ.Business,Rl/o H.No.1-2411, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Serilingampally, R. R.District.
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
l5
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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring (a) the Dectaration No.G2l241gt2018 dt.03.06.2021 for acquiring the land to dn extent of 34,061.s9 sq. yds., in lsnapur village as well as G.o.Ms.No.1B dt-13.08.2019 as iilegar, arbitrary and against the principles of Land Acquisition Act 2013 as well as against Article 300 (A) of the constitution of lndia and set aside the same (b) direct the respondents to consider the recommendation of the 6th respondent and stick on to the proposal of road beneath the high tension rines or (c) direct the 3rd respondent to give fresh opportunity to the petitioner and all concerned land lords to be heard and pass ordersjudiciousry or arternativery direct the respondents to pay compensation @Rs.30,000/-per Sq.yd., by acquiring the plots of the effected parties. 1
Petition under section'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of decraration No.G2t24'rgt2o18 dt.03.06.2021 for acquiring the rand to an extent of 34,061.59 Sq. yds., in lsnapur Village pending disposal of the present writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. C.N. MOORTY
counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI HARENDER PERSHEAD, spEclAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SR! L. PRABHA,KAR REDDY
SC FOR TSIIC
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRt R. CH SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
Between
Tto
40 22
1 . M/s. Vasistha Enerov Private Limited, Represented by its managing director i,i:,y#qifti""f irnr"Trlulxilai:$:t",ws,;liiiflx*?,ff ; Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad -S0O 081.
- M/s. Vasishta Min<iralspriv-ate Limited, Represented by its managing director Sri M.Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Sri M. Nagh Raiu aberj aUout +fye-ais,-6Ei
l(r
business office at Flat No.3, Plot No.195, Sreenilayam Apartments Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081.
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ and moreparticularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring final declarationissued by the respondentNo.2 vide No.G2l241912O18 dated 03-06-2O21 for acquiringlarger extent of land including land of thepetitioners to an extent of 9,931square yards, forming part of Survey Nos.3'16, 392, 393, 399, 409,410,412to 417, situated at lsnapur village, Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy district, along with other lands for thepurpose of construction of four lane carriage way from IDA Pashamylaram lndustrial park to outer ring road and G.o.Ms.No.18, dated 't 3-0g-20 r 9, without following due process of raw and against the recommendations of rhe Terangana state rndustriar rnfrastructure corporation Limited (TSrcL), as iregar and against the
t7
principles laid down in The Right to Fair compensation and rransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiritation and Resetflement Act, 2013, as we[ as against the Article 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set aside the same and further direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the recommendations of the respondent No-6 and stick on to the proposar of road beneath the High{ension lines, or direct the respondent No.3 to give fresh opportunity to all concerned landlords to be heard and pass orders judiciousry or arternativery direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the rate of present market price of @ Rs.30,000/- per square yard, by bcquiring the plots of the individual affected parties as it is in its actuar size without reaving the corners of the said plots.
o
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an order staying the operation of the finar decraration issued by the respondent No.2 vide No-G2r2419r2018 dated Cf.-0:6-2021 for acquiring rarger extent of rand including land of the petitioners to an extent of 9,931 square yards, forming part of Survey Nos. 316, 392, 393, 399, 4Og, 41O, 412 to 417, situated at lsnapur village, Patancheru mandar, Sangareddy district, arong with other rands for the purpose of construction of four rane carriage way from rDA pashamyraram rndustriar park to outer ring road and G.O.Ms.No.1g, dated 13_0g_2019, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners: M/S. SHYAM S. AGRAWAL
counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: sRt HARENDER PERSHEAD, spEcrAL GP FOR ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY
SG FOR TSIIC
Counset for the Respondent No.7: SRt R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
The Court made the fo owing: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
I.A.Nos.1 and.2 of 2022 IN/AND W.P.No.16342 of 2O21 Ar\Ip
WRIT PEIITION Nos.2O6O6.233O3. and 27984 of 2O21. 330()0- 34624. 37697 4L . 41985 and 38474 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
All these batch of Writ Petitions are filed questioning the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short'the Act,20l3), at different stages, however, mostly on the similar grounds and as such all the matters are taken up for hearing together at the request of the learned counsel appearing on either side and they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
/
MSK,J Wp_I6342 _202t and batch
::2::
5' while issuing the said preliminary notification, the power under Section 1OA of the Act, 2013, was invoked by the Government by issuing G.o.Ms.No.rg, dated 13.0g.2019 and the administrative sanction for the proposed road was sanctioned under G.o.Rt.No.S, dated 04.01 .2oLg. Thereafter, the draft decraration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, was published uide proceeding No.G2 / 24Lg I 2org,dated os.o6.2o2r and thereafter, .fi award was passed uid.e proceeding No.B3l82 64 / 2olS,dated 04. LO.2O2 I.
^ :VIJN,Jtcw I Wp_16342 _202 I and batch
objections were dealt with b1,' the LAO and reasoned orders were communicated to the petitioners rejecting their objections by the LAO. At that stage, the petitioners in W.P.No.27984 of 2O2l filed W.P.No.2935 of 2021 questioning the G.O.Rt.No.5, dated 04.0i.2018, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 13.08.2019 and the preliminary notification, dated 13.1 1 .2OI9, issued under Section 11(1) of the Act,2013, firstly, on the ground thatthe subject project does not fall within the meaning ofthe infrastructure as contemplated under Section 1O(A) of the Act, 2Ol3 and as such exempting the subject aco^uisition fromthe provisions of Chapters II and III of the Act,2013, is bad inlaw. Secondly, on the ground that the objections raised bythe petitioners therein were not considered by the respondent-LAO. Thirdly, that there is an existing alternative road beneath the existing HT line. Fourthly, on the ground that the survey that is required to be conducted under Section 12 of the Act, 2013, was not conducted, which is a pre-requisite for acquisition of the land. A learned Single Judge of this Court having considered all such grounds dismissed the said Writ Petition by an order, dated 29.04.2021 and further held that the petitioners therein having a very small extent of land are not entitled to question the entire acquisition proceedings for a total extent of land about Acs.40.oo gts., arld that the private interest must yield to
r'
. 1-... .- ,r:. .. i
MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch
:4::
the public interest and also holding that the court shourd refrain from going into the areas, which are weil within the exclusive domain of the technicar experts and court shourd not brush aside their views assailed without adequate material or proof. Aggrieved by the order in w.p.No.2g3s of 2021, the writ Petitioners therein filed the writ Appear No.2g5 of 2021 and the said writ Appeal carne to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this court, by an order, dated 31.01 .2022, and there against sLP (civill uide diary No.23gg9 of 2022 was fired by the writ petitioners therein and the same also was dismissed by the Hon',bre Apex court, by an order, dated 23.09.2022. Thus the challenge to the preriminary notification issued under section 11 (1) of the Act, 2013, has become final. 7 ' out of these batch of writ petitions, w.p.Nos. 16342, 20606, and 233o3 of 2021, 33000, 3z69z, 34624, and 3g474 of 2022, (seven writ petitions) are filed questioning the draft declaration published under Section 1g(1) of the Act, 2013, uid.e proceedings No.G2/24r9/2org, dated 03.06.2021 issued in furtherance of the preliminary notification which was the subject matter of w.p.No.2g3s of 2021, on similar grounds as were raised and considered by this court in w.p.No.2g35 0f 2o2L and also sought for an alternative direction to the
I t
tE
lvtSK.J Wp_I6342 _2021 and batch
::5
respondents to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.20,O0O/- per Sq. Yd /Rs.30,00O l- per Sq. Yd.
r'
r'
::6::
MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch
infructuous. Further petitioner No.3 in w.p.No.33000 of 2022 is not a person whose rand is notified for acquisition at alr. 10. Taking into considera.tion the fact that alr the grounds that are raised in this batch of seven writ petitions are arready considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court as confirmed by the learned Division Bench as weil as by the Hon,bre Apex court, the reasons given by the learned single Judge in w'P.No.2935 of 2o2r are equaly applicabre to these batch of seven writ petitions. In spite of, filing a detailed counter by the respondents bringing to the notice of the petitioners about the order passed by a learned singre Judge of this court in wP'No.293s of 2o2r and passing of Award, the petitioners have not chosen to contradict the contents of the counter affidavit or amend the prayer and no reply affidavit is filed.
11' For the above reasons and for the reasons assigned by a learned single Judge of this court in w.p.No .2gss of 2021, this court is of the considered view that the fate of these writ Petitions cannot be otherwise than the fate of w.p.No.2935 of 2021.
12' Then coming to w.p.No -27gg4 0f 2021, it is I,ed seeking a writ of Mandamus to decrarre the action of respondent No.3 in issuing a notice bearing No.B3/g264/2o1g, dated os.Lo.2o2r, under section 3z(2) of the Act,2o13, requiring the petitioners to
iD <D
MSK,J Wp_16342 _2021 and batch
receive the compensation already determined under award, dated O4.LO.2O2I, on acquiring the land of the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos.229lA 12 and 22BlAAl116 of Kardanoor Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District and to set aside the award proceedings, dated 04.IO.2021. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are the petitioners in W.P.No.2935 of 2021, wherein the challenge to the preliminary notification was negatived by a learned Single Judge of this Court asdiscussed supra: Though relief is sought to set aside the award,dated O4.LO.2O2\ in the Writ Petition. no copy of thesaid awardis placed on record except the notice issued under Section 37(21 of the Act, 2013. In the absence of placing on record a copyof the impugned award, dated O4.1O.2O21, the question of deciding the validity of the said award does not arise. Be that as it may, as on the date of filing of this Writ Petition, the Writ Appeal No.285 of 2021, filed against the order in W.P.No.2935 of 2O2L, was pending and therefore all the grounds that were raised in Writ Petition No.2935 of 2021 were also reiterated by the petitioners in this Writ Petition as well.
MSK,J Wp_16342 _202 t and batch
::8
petitioners were not served with any notices under section 2r of the Act, 2013, nor they were heard on determination of the compensation and as such the mandatory requirement of Section 2L of the Act, 2oL3, is not folrowed by the respondent_ LAo while passing an award, dated o4.ro.2o21. In response to the said averment in the affidavit filed in support of writ Petition, the respondents rrave filed a counter affidavit wherein it is categorically stated in paragraph-g, that the notices under section 2L and22 of the Act, 2or3, were given to ail the notified persons through proceedings No.B3/g2 64 /20rg, dated 22'o7.2o2r and that the award enquiry was conducted on 23.08.2021 and that the compensation was calculated as per Sections 26 to 3O of the Act, 2OIS, and then award, dated o4'1o.2o21, was passed. In spite of such specific averment in the counter affidavit, the petitioners have not chosen to file any reply affidavit denying the said averment. Further the respondents have placed before this court a copy of the said notice, dated 22-07.202t, together with a copy of the Panchanama, dated Lo.og.2o2r, through which the said notice under section 2r of the Act, 2oL3, is stated to have been dury served on the petitioners. In the right of the above, the ground of non service of notice under Section 2r of the Act, 2oLs, is not available to the petitionero Hence, this court does not find any
o-.
MSK,,I \'p- 16342 _2021 and batch
merit in the Writ Petition to interfere with the Land Acquisition process, which has already concluded.
10::
MSK,J Wp-l$a2 _2021 and barch
all the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation that is awarded under the Award, dated o4.ro.2o21, it is always opEn for the petitioners to seek the reference under section 64 of the Act, 2013, to the Authority for fixation of just compensation. For this reason also, this court is not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and the award, dated o4.Lo.2o21. Further, it is also rerevant to note that the craim of the petitioners in a[ these batch of writ petitions is only in respect of a smail extent of land when compared to the total extent of Acs.40.16 gts., which is sought to be acquired under the acquisition proceedings in question. The extent of rand that is being claimed by the petitioners in the respective Writ
Petitions is as under:_
| S.No. 1 2 |
Writ PetitionNo. 16342of202t 23303of2O2L |
ExtentofLand t975 .Yds 200 Yds |
|---|---|---|
| 3 |
27984 of2021 | 3388 Yds |
| 4 |
34624of2O22 | . .Yds 448 |
| 5 |
37697of2022 | 200 Yds |
| 6 | 38474 of2022 | . 931 Yds |
| 7 |
33OO0of2022 | . 4OOSq.Yds |
| 8 | 47255of2022 | Yds 200 |
| 9 | 41985of2022 | . 200 Yds |
Thus, in all the total extent of land in dispute is only 7,942 Sq. yds, out of the totar extent of land Acs.40.16 gts., which is acquired for the project in question. The grounds of
<br>
J-v
11::
iV,ISK,J Wp_l 6342 _202 I and batch
attack for t]'re acquisition proceedings raised are only a procedural in nature, which are also found to be unsustainable by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. As already observed above, the acquisition proceedings cannot be interdicted as the attack to the acquisition proceedings is only by the petitioners who are holding a small extent of land when compared to the total extent of land, which is acquired.Hence, at the instance of the petitioners herein, the totalprojectcannot be stalled. The Hon'ble Apex Court has takennote ofthis situation and in the case of RamniklalN.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra and otherslhas beenpleased to hold
as under:-
"Before parting with this case,we thinkit necessaryto make a few observations relevant to land acquisitionproceedings'Our country is now launched upon an ambitiousprogrammeof all- round economic advancement to make our economy cornpetitive in the world market. We are anxious to attractforeigndirect investment to the maximum extent. Weproposeto competewith china economically. We wish to attain thepace ofprogress achieved by some of the Asian countries,referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructurenecessaryfor sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking inour country. The means of transportation,powerand communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often callfor acquisition of land and that too without any delay. Itis, however, natural that in most of these cases, thepersons affpcted challenge the acquisitionproceedings in courts.These challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the
'1tssz1 i. scc 134
I
,
L2
w p -t 63 42-zoz r anfiisali
courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power or erint i" "t"y7irrir.,""rio.,. The power under Articre 226 is aiscreiionary. tt witt "u"--."."i""d furtherance of interests or;ustic.;"J";;';;j; only in out of a legal point. And in ttrc marter;i^il# acquisition on the makingfor public purposes, the interesrs ofjustice "; d;;rbric purposes, very often one the interests of justice a.,d and the same. ttre e'g;;;"o'l#,"""". Brr.., in lirif "JIi,, They are injunction or other similar orders, ,,o." pa.Iicutarty granting ofof an interlocutory nature, is equally dt9,1""".1. ti,J,"our,s have to weigh the public interest ;,: ?:"1" ,t " p"ri".,J interest while ;ljff,l",the power under Article zzi --i"i."d any of their direct,i;;x.T1:J;:[,,T,t,:fi l,ff :ffi , j? jl;:rk,:li; account of non-compliance with soml ,dffiili.r*"r,t that the persons interested shalr arso u"_""iiii.i-t'# o.11,'li,* amount of damages to be award"a "" " i,lp"r or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable.
There are rearessin j:I.^r,:E:ri&?i:.l:if, ,"iij,i,ffi i::d1,ji"*1 the only mode of rei.""". T? wit, it is ultimately a matter of batancing the go.mqeting intlre.s.ts .aevon;;i;,, it is neither possible nor advisable iL ""r. w" n"ri, ""j. iiust that these considerations wilr be duly b;;" in mind by the courts wh,e dealing with challenges to J"q-rlrrron proceedings.,,
15' A Division Bench of this court arso having considered the Judgment in the case of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. state of Maharashtra and others (1 supra) and arso in the case of Koripaka Balarnra v. state of Telangana2 has been pleased to hold that the analogr laid down in the above referred Judgments under the Land Acquisition Act, Lgg4, can be adopted for the acquisitions under the Act, 2or3 as weil and extended the same analogr even in respect of the acquisition of the propergr under the provisions of the Act, 2OL3.
2 W.P.No.t98S4 of 20L9, dated It.O3.2O2O
6O
13::
IVI J I.J Wp- I 6342 -202 I and batch
L7. Insofar as the contention i.e., the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, was passed beyond a period of one vear and by operation of law and the oreliminary notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, stand rescinded is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that there was an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3984 of 2O2O, wherein the preliminary notification was challenged, which was inoperation for a period of 349 days and if that period is excluded in terms of first prouiso to sub section 7 of Section 19 of the Act, 2013, the impugned declaration is well within the time. The said submission of the learned Special Government Pleader is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the same, the said ground also is not available to the petitioners.
L4:
MSK,J Wp_16342 _202 I and batch
L9' Interim order passed in the respective Writ petitions shall stand vacated. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2or3, for enhancement and fixation of just compensation and if the matter is not arready referred to the Authority under section 64 0f the Act, 2013, for enhancement and fixation of just compensation, liberty is ..-.granted to the petitionersto make request for reference under Section 64 0f the Act, 20L3, to the Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on making such request, the respondent-LAo shall refer the matter to the authority for fixation of the just compensation under Section 64 of the Act, 2or3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of request from the respective petitioners.
4
15
I i/cgI tJ l,J r Wp_ I 6342 _202 I and batch
Petition and petitioner/respondent No.7 cannot maintain such applications in the Writ Petition filed by some third parties. Hence, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 are dismissed.
As a scquel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in
this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/.I. NAGALAKSHMI DE
//TRUE COPYI/
OFFICER
To,
CHR GJZK
l9
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/0212023
COMMON ORDER
l.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022
!N/AND
-{ ii - S l.r:i;..
<br>L
o 1 1 [Pn 2023
t)
1c ar ,-
'-. L_i lr c{i l. ',r., -i
.. -t: ")*'
W.P.No.16342 of 2021
AND
Writ Petition Nos.20606. 23303 and
of 2021.
DISMISSING THE I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2022 AND DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS
G
lqk:,
2tfzlzz
S&J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, can be challenged on grounds already reje
Whether the petitioners are entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings holding only a small extent of land compared to the total project area?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶332
Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra and others
Koripaka Balamra v. State of TelanganaReferred¶341
Koripaka Balamra v. State of Telangana
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Kodali Lakshmi Deepthi
Thummala Jayaram
Mantena Suresh Kumar Varma
State of Telangana
District Collector, Sangareddy District
Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy Division
Muimmineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
