Disposed

Andekar Jahangir v. The Principal Secretary

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/3169/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an award of land to a respondent. Relying on a categorical statement by the State that the award reference under the 2013 Act had been initiated due to a dispute, the Court ordered the State to refer the matter to the Authority for adjudication of rival claims.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.5 directed to refer the matter to the Authority under Sections 75 and 76 of the 2013 Act within four weeks for adjudication of rival claims.

Andekar Jahangir Vs The Principal Secretary — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

I I

! :

[^32s61

{

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

¶6

TUESDAY THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENISUDHEER KUMAR}

¶9

WRIT PETlTtoN NO. 3169 0F²⁰²³

¶10

Between:

¶11

'1 Andekar Jahangrr S/o late Jaganatham, aged about 50 years,

¶12

2 Andekar Jayender S/o^{late Ramoli, aged about 54 years,}

¶13

Both are R/o Meerkhanpet^{vrllage,Kandukuru mandal,R.RDistrict.}

...PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Pnncrpal Secretary. Revenue Department, Government^{of Telangana} State, Secretanat Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The District Collector.^{Ranga Reddy district,At Kongara Kalan,}

¶19

3 The Addrtronal Collector^{(Revenue), R.R. District, At KongaraKalan.}

¶20

4 The Zonal Manager^T S^I lC,^{ShamshabadZone, Shamshabad, Rangareddy} Dtsti'rct

¶21

5 Revenue Drvrsronal Offrcer^{cum Land AcquisitionOfficer, Kandukuru Division,} R R Drstflct

¶22

The Tahsrldar. Kandukuru^{mandal, R.R. District.}

¶23

¶24

Andekar Jagadrsh Babu. S/o Narsimha, aged^{about 40 years, resident of} l\rleerkhanpel vrllage. Kandukuru^{mandal, R.R. District.}

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petitron under A tcle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiapraying that in the} crrcumstances stated rn the^{affrdavit filed therewith,the High Coo(f may be} pieased to rssue an approprrate writ, order or direction^{more particularly oneln the} nature of Wrrt of Mandamus^{declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the} impugned notlce rn File No^{D1315712019 dated 23.11.2022,lo pay the entrre} conrpensatron amount and^{also to allot plot no. 233, in respect of the landbearing}

t {

II !

{

¶32

¶33

Sy.No. 1 12 (part), admeasuflng Ac 1 20 gts. Srtuated at Meerkhanpet village, Kandukur mandal, Ranagareddy drstnct, to the respondent No.7, by overlooking the petitions/ applications pending before them also the representations and objections dated 24.11.2022 of the petrtroners. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona l, without^putting the^petrtioners on notice. against to the Principles of Natural Justrce and consequently set astde the impugned notice in the interest of^justice.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶35

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC^prayrng that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^pet tron the High Court may be^pleased to stay all proceedings includrng the^payment of compensatron also allotment of^{plot No.} 233, pursuant to the impugned notrce bearing Fale No. D/31⁵⁷¹²⁰¹ 9, dated 23.11.2022 to the respondent No 7. rn respect of the land beartng Sy.No.¹¹² (part), admeasuring Ac 1-20 gts Srtuated at Meerkhanpet village, Kandukur mandal, Ranagareddy drstflct^pend nq drsposal of the marn writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAMA CHANDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 & 6: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4 SRI L- PRAEHAKAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TSIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.7

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR} WRIT PETITION No.3169 ot2023

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Heard learned counscl fur the^{petitioners,learned} Governmenl Pleader for Land Acquisition^{forrespondent} Nos.l to 3,5 and 6 and Sri L.^{Prabhakar Reddy, learned} Standing Counsel for respondcnt No.4.

¶41

This r,vrit petition is filccl seeking a writ of^mandamusi.tl declarc the .iction of rcspttndcnts in issuing thc^noticein File No.D/3137 l2019, datcd 23.11.2022,^proposing to^pay compensation in rcspect of land atlmeasuring Ac. 1.20^{guntas in} Plot No.233 in Survcy No. t^t12 (l'.irt) situated at^Meerkhanpct Vitlage, K:rndukr-rr Mand:rl, tliurg:r Reddy l)istrict, in fa.vour of resporrdurrt No.7 rn spitc^r)l objections, dated^24.11.2022-, statcd to har,e bccn submiLtcd b1' thc^{petitionersas illegaland} arbitrary.

¶42

This Court ordered notrcc to thc respondents^on 06.02.2023 and also pcrmittcd l-he^pctitioners counsel to^take out pcrsonal noticc oo respondcnL No.7. The personal^notice taken on rcspond<'r-rt No.'/ is rcturncd with an endorsement 'addresscc lelt rvithout in strut:tiotr'.

¶43

¶44

Rcspondent No.5 filed counter aflldavit stating that rn view of the dispute, claiming compcnsation rn respect of the land acquired under the arvard passed vicle Award No.Dl3157 /2O19, dated 30.06.2022, rhe re spondcnrs have decided to refer the matter to the authority under Sections 75 and 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Trzrnsparency in Land Acquisit-ion, Rchabrlitation and Resettlcmcnt Act, 2013 and the relevant portion lrom the counter a[fidzrviL reads as under:

¶45

"... As there is a drsputc bet\a,een thc abor.c 1>zLrties over the subject land thc compensation amount has not been pard to any awarcle(: iurd the Award is being rcfr:rrcd to the Authority u/5.76 ot rhc L.A. Act, ancl cornpcnsarion amount is being deposirr:d bclorc thc r\trthoritr r-r,/S.7t-r of thc Act before the Author.irr, l.hat afrcr rclerencc is made to the Authority, thc 1;r.tirioncrs ancl othcrs ,,r,rll be intimated accordingly lor approaching the sard .,\uthorrry for agitating for their righrs ovcr the land bcfore thc said Authority.

¶46

ln reply to par:ts ll ro 19, rt rs rcspcc.tfully submitted that as m(.nrioned in above paras rhe compensation of lands ar_-rluircd in this award lrits not been paid due to the abovc (lispute ar.rcl thc arvarcl is bcrng referred to the Authorirr. u,rS.75 of the Act. :rnd compensation amount is l;cing depositcd u/S.76 of thc Act before the authoritl,.^.l.herefore, the petitioners rnay agitate for their rights belrrn. thc Authorit_v, after rclcrcnce made u/S.75 of the Act ,\s thcrc is dispute ovcr the

¶47

¶48

I : i

¶49

subject land no^{plots weregiven to any person in the} award as a-lleged by the^{petitioners herein.As such t}le} question of allotment of^plot to the^{petitionersherein does} not arise. The^{petiuoners can agitate for their rights over} the land and compensation^{beforethe Authorityafter} intimation to them about refcrence^{made to the Authority.} Therefore, the petitioners are^not entitled^{for any relief as} sought for in these^paras and^{the writ petition is not} maintarnabte under law and^rs liable^{for dismissal."}

¶50

In the light of the categorical statement made^by respondent No.5 in thc counter affidavit filed, this Court is^of the considered view that no further adjudication be made in this writ petition and it is sulfice to dispose of the same by^placing on record the contcnts madc rn the counter affidavit.

¶51

Accordingly, the wnt^pe titior.r is disposed of directing respondent No.5 to takc stcps for referring the matter to the authority under Sectir.rns 75 and 76 ol the Act, 2O 13 for adjudicating thc rival claims betn.ccn the petitioners and respondent No.7 in res[]ect of the subject property for claiming compensation as awarded under thc award, dated 30.06.2022, within a period of four r.vccks from thc date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both rhc pctitioncrs and respondent No.7 are at liberty to adjudicatc their clairns bclore the authority in the

¶52

¶53

relerence to be made by respondent No.S in^{accordance "'ith}

¶54

law. There shall be no order as^{to costs.}

¶55

Misce[laneous Petitions, if any,^pending in^thisrvrit

¶56

petition shall stand closed.

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/-K. SAI KUMARI ASSISTANT^REGISJ,&AR sEcnoN &r,"r*^/ 4

¶59

To, 1 Revenue Drvisional^{Officer cum Land AcquisitionOfficer'Kandukuru Dtvision'} R R District.

¶60

2 One CC to^{SRI G. RATMA CHANDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶61

3 Two CCs to^{GP for Land Acquisition,High Courtfor the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

4 One CC to SRI^{L PRABHAKAR REDDY'S C for TSIIC [OPUC]}

¶63

5 Two CD Copies

NIP

{

! {

il'

{

{

,i {

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510412023

L'ti !i i,l 7i--
i
I
0 5 Jtit 2023
ORDER

¶78

WP.No.3169 of 2023

¶79

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶80

I
e//" t) >3 .\t")
;$w

Andekar Jahangir v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andekar Jahangir v. The Principal Secretary

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

P. Ramesh Kumar, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Muddapati Mallikarjuna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Yarala Komura Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchipudi Kusuma Vs The State of Telangana

J. Gowramma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt G.Gangavva Vs The State of Telangana