Dismissed

G Srinivas Reddy S/o G.Lakshmi Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Mar 2023WP/44591/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telanganda dismissed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification. The petitioner claimed non-compliance with Section 26(3)'s mandatory market value revision requirement. The court held the Collector was competent to revise values independently without following the 1998 Market Value Guidelines Rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, stood dismissed.

G Srinivas Reddy S/o G.Lakshmi Reddy Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

*.__"<br>

t³²⁵⁶¹

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

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER^KUMAR

¶8

Between

¶9

G SRINIVAS^{REDDY S/o G'LakshmaRedpY'} -aoed^{about 71} years, Occ:Agriculture,^{R/O Kyasaram Viff age]' e-ai*ef ii[ici, Siddipet District}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

.,) Revenue

¶13

1 r ' rHE b.[u,{*"nt,^{srArE^oF} Secretariat^rELANgAluo, Buildings 5:&"?J,,lt-t#,?ffi!secretary' -

¶14

The^{District collector, siddipet District.Telanganastate'}

¶15

3.TheSpecialbeputyCollector(LandAcqUsition,KaleswaamProject, ielangana^state. Acquisition)^Department

¶16

a. The Land^{AcquisitionOfficer"Revenue(Land}

¶17

: il ili.'.,.il'j:lommissioner,,^{Nagarpanchavat, Gaiwer Mandar' Presnapur'}

¶18

. ;flll'illllto'*"r^{raruq'sidvdipet District' reransanaState}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

petition under^{Article226 ofthe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} therewith'^{the High Court may be} circumstances pleased^{to issue a stated writ, in order the o, ord"ra affidaun "'"0 more particularryone in the nature of writ} of^{Mandamusto hole the refusat of tn" Respondents in tne particulars2nd and 3rd} Respondent^{in not informing ,*rn".,",",, .Sth RespondentMunicipalitythrough} ameeting^{held especially ,"nu.n ,n" contents of the Notificationdated} land^admeasuring o7-11-201l^{by the-3d Respondentr,erein as puutisrredin Eenadu Newspaper in} Karimnagar^{goition concerning the acquisition} Tl^{and of ,nn n} '"tn'oner^{oft(yasarmVillage' Gaiwet} Ac.ll.3g^{gts" situated in Sy'No:O'''O'}

¶21

z--'---

¶22

Taluq, Siddipet District, under Sec.11(1) of.the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation nd Resetflement Act, 2013 as mandatorily required under sec. 1 1(2) and the object of the Act of 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of sec.11(2) and the object of the Act of 2o13and Article 300-4 of'the constitution of lndia and thereby set aside the Notification. dt.07-112017'as pubrished by the 3rd Respondent herein in. Eenadu Newspaper in, Karimnagar Edition, under sec.11(1) of the Act of 2013.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2017

¶24

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 preased to suspend the Notification dt.07-1 1-2017 by the 3rd Respondent herein as published ;#"-,r-,1to"er in Karimnagar Edition, under sec.1 1(1) ofthe Right to Fair Resetflement o'no Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiritation and ffi::H"fi;,.;.;":,;:[1^ll",;ffi:x,T :::'1;l:T;:,:T herein and not hold a specific,""t"'tt' for refusal to inform the 5ttr Respondent sec.1 1t(2) ottr," a"t or;;ffi.;fino ror the same ias mandatorily required under rg 'o disposar -':v1zvD(1t o rf t he fi€ above writ petition. lA No: 2 oF 201g

¶25

petitior :L:1u;.,:,:;'1,_1T,"ff':Ji,'l^"" pravins thar in the circumst here "",o1,11,::J:'i:mln':i".:,J:':1ffi^{;i,",",T#iJ:T:::::":} Fair in karimna# #ff :l::'ndent Rehabirarion "oro"n.]l'0"' (11) ot petitioner,.,rr,"no^{Reseftrem";'"onand Transparency in ,rn.t""'11} ffiT:;,[ii::il:f^{i"i"1:':"'""'::,T':l$##"':;T:} ffiffi^{:: : :} i;i,;r,^X:X; l;X*}] llflfi manoa britY g disPes ,r oi;; above writ

l l l

lA NO: 3 OF 2018

Petition undbr 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 suspend the Notification dt' 07.11.2017 vide File No.01/357 1t2017 0f the 2nd respondent collector to the extend of the petitioner,s lands in admeasuring Ac'11'3g gts., situated in sy.No. 6g, 70, 71 and 72 0fKyasaram virage.

¶30

Counset for the petitioner: SRl. B MAYUR REDDY counset for the Respondents: sRt.p. mIH4 NAG!_SARA RAo, spEcrAL G.p. FoR rHE ADvotAiE;ititr

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶32

,, ".:,,,, : .. '. !^.,1i";'l'.: r-r :'

¶33

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENISUDHEER} KUMAR

¶34

WRIT PETTTION^{NO.44591OF 2017}

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ Petition^{is filed assailing the notificationdated} o7.||.2o|TissuedunderSectionll(1)oft}reRighttoFair Compensation^{andTransparency inLandAcquisition'} Rehabilitation^{and ResettlementAct, 2Ot3 ("the Act, 2O13"for} brevity),insofaraSthelandsbelongingtothepetitioner situated in^{Survey Nos.68,70,71and 72 of Kyasaram Village,} District, totallY^admeasuring Gajwel Mandal,^SiddiPet Acs. 1 1.39^gts.

¶37

Originally,^{the said Writ Petition was filed on the ground} that,asrequiredunderSectionll(2)oftheAct,2013,thefifth respondent/local^{authority is not informedabout the proposed} acquisition^{and also on the ground that the Grama sabhathat} as required^{to be conductedwas not conducted'}

¶38

Howev6r, thereafter^{the petitionerfiled I.A.No.1of 2ol8} seeking suspension^{of the impugnednotificationdated} 07.tl.2o|7 and^{in the affidavit filed in support of the said I'A',} he raised another^{ground that the respondent failed to comply} with the requirement of revising the market value as required

¶39

2 MSK,J w.P.tvo.4459t OF 20t7

¶40

: .! ii t.ll i i

¶41

under third proviso to Section 26 of the Act,.2ot3. This court, by an order dated 05.01 .20L8, passed an interim order staying all further proceedings in respect of the subjec! land. The respondents filed counter affidavit dated 27.oL.2o2o along with supporting documents. The petitioner filed reply affidavit in response to the counter affidavit liled by the respondents.

¶42

Heard Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Ananttra Nageswara Rao, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General.

¶43

Though the petitioner raised the grounds of not intimating the fift} respondent/local authority prior to issuing the impugned notification and also of not conducting Grama sabha, as required under section ll(2]lof the Act, 2013, after filing of the counter afficlavit and the documents liled in support thereof, learned .Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has chosen not to pursue such grounds. However, learned senior counsel placed strong reliance on the ground raised in I.A.No.2 of 2oL8 stating that in terms 'of the third proviso to sub-section 3 of section 26 of the Act, 2013, the collector shall, before initiating any land acquisition proceeding, take all necessary steps to re,riJ#and update the

¶44

\ .\

¶45

MSK,J w.P.NO.4459l OF 2017

¶46

¶47

market value of the land on the basis^{of prevalentmarket rate} in that area and in the instant^{case, there was no such revision} of market value took^{place prior to issuanceof the impugned} notification. Learned Senior^{Counselfurther contendedt]:at} the revision of market^{valuecontemplated underthe third} proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section^{26 of the Act, 2O13 is} required to be done in^{terms of the Telangana Revisionof} Market Value Guidelines^{Rules, 1998 ("the Rules, 1998" for} brevity) and the^{procedurerequired thereunder is required to} be followed in revising^{the market value and the Collector is not} the authority to^{revise the market value in termsof the said} Rules. Thus, he contended^{that the proceedingsof the District} collector, Siddipet District,^{vide proceedings No.Gl} lO4l2ol7 dated. O8.O9.2017 cannot^{be construed as a proceedingrevising} the market value in^{termsof the third proviso to sub-Section 3} of Section 26 of the^{Act, 2013. Further,learnedSenior} Counsel also contended^{that, as against tJ:e proceedings dated} 05.08.2017, which is the third^{reference in the proceedings} dated 08.09.20 L7, a Writ^{Petitioncameto be filed beforethis} court in w.P.N o.42612 of 2Ol7^{and, a learned single Judgeof} this Court suspended the operation of the said proceedings wherein the market value rvas fixed in respect of some of the

/ d

MSKrJ W.P.[O..t4S9t OF 20tz

¶52

j !I i; ll Iii !;

¶53

villages in siddipet District and as such, the said proceedings dated o8.og.2orr said to have been issued by the second respondent herein revising the basic market value in respect of the lands in siddipet District is of no consequence. Learned senior cou,sel also has drarvn the attention of trris court to the order passed by the rearned singre Judge in w.p.No.+ 2612 of 2o17 and arso to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in tAr.A.No.22 of 201g.

¶54

6' on the other hand, rearned special Gover'ment preader submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioner are tota.lly unsustainabre and insofar as the requirement of revising the market varue, as required under the third proviso to section 26(3) of the Act, 2013, is concerned; it is submitted that the said requirement was arready complied with by the respondents and in terms thereof, the second respondent has already issued proceedings No.Gl /04/2or7 dated og.og.2o11, much prior to issuance of the impugned notification. It is further contended that the Act, 2olg specifically confers power on the District collector to revise the market value and the same is nothing to do with the revision of market value under the Rules, 1998 and furttrer contended that there is a lengthy procedure that is contemplated una6fj tne said Rules for

!l'l l'

MSK,J w.P.NO.4459l^{OR 20L7}

¶59

generalrevisionofmarketvalueandsucharevisionisnotthe one contemplated^{under the third provisoto section26(3) of} theAct,2Ol3andthepowerisconferred'onthesecond respondent^{to revise the marketvalue by undertaking a} differentexercisethantheexercisethatiscontemplatedunder the Ru1es,^1998.

¶60

As already'noted^{above,the grounds on which the Writ} Petitionwasoriginallyfiledarenotpressedbythe'learned counselforthepetitioner.Theonlygroundarguedisaboutthe non-complianceoftherequirementunderthirdprovisotosubSection 3^{of Sectio n 26 of the Act, 2Ol3' A copy of the} proceedingsdated0s.0g.2ol7isplacedonrecordalongwith the counter a-ffidavit^{filed by the respondentsto contend that} the requirement^{of the third provisoto Section 26{t31ofthe Act,} 2013 was complied^{with by the respondents. A perusal of the} said proceedings dated^{08.09.2017 indicates that the second} respondent, after constituting^{a committee for that purpose,} the second respondent has^{taken a decision to revise the basic} market value with an increase of 22Yo^{for the purpose of} acquisition of lands in Siddipet District. The second respondent has undertaken such an exercise, as required under the third proviso to Section ?6(3) of the Act. The said

1 t

w.p.ryo.T:f;i oF zot.

¶65

w.p.ryo.T:f;i proceedings crated 08.09.2017 is not under "hrr"";.';;r. Itrrit petition' In the absence of any chalrenge to the said proceeding or to the procedure that was follow. .^rng wh,e fixing the market varue through the said proceeding, the contention of the learned counsel for the pefitioner that the requir:ement of third proviso to Section 26p)of the Act, 2018 irs not complied .1tt cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the submission of rne rearned counser for the petitioner that the second respondent herein is not the competent authority to revise the market value and it is only the revision of market varue in terms of the Rules, lggg is the revision that is contemprated under the third proviso to Section 26(3)of the Act, 2013 cannot be.accepted for the following reasons:_

¶66

The third proviso to section 26(srof the Act, 2o13 reads as under:-

¶67

"Provided also that the co,ector shan, before initiating necessary of any land steps acquisition to revise and proceeding". update ihe i" market value ""y -;;;, take of thelall land on the basis of the prevalencmarket rate in that area.,

¶68

In terms of the above said provision, it is the collector, who is conferred with power to revise the market value before initiating any land acquisition proceedings. Under sub-section /l 1 of section 26 of the Act, 2013, the criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the rand'is specified. one of

¶69

¶70

iI I,

¶71

MSK'J w.P.NO.44591^{oF 2017}

¶72

SuChconsideradonsisthemarketvalue,ifany,specifiedinthe Indian^{Stamp Act' 1899 for registrationof sale deeds or} agreements^{to sell etc' From this' it is clear that the market} value^{that was already fixed prior to the issuanceof the} notification^{for acquisitionfor the purpose of the StampAct'} 1899oftheland'isrequiredtobetakenintoconsideration whilerevisingthemarketvalueintermsofthethirdprovisoto Section^{26(3)of the Act' 2013' In the entire Section 26 of the} Act,2013,thereisnoindicationthattherevisionofmarket valueshatlbedoneinaccordancewiththelndianStampAct, 1899 or the^{Rules made there under or by the authorities} under the^{IndianStamPAct, 1899'}

¶73

As already^{notedhereinabove'the thirdproviso} specifically confers^{power on the collector and there is no} ambiguity in that^{regard. In the absence of any ambiguity on} the authority, who^{is supposedto revise the market value} under the third^{provisoto section26(31of the Act, 2013, the} question of following the Rules,^{1998 for the purpose of} revision of market value under the third^{provisoto Section} 26(3) of the Act, 2013 does not arise. It is^{also necessary to} notice that the revision of market varue for the purpose of Indian stamp Act, Tggg under the Rures , Tgggprovides for a

¶74

: ^) i

¶75

MSK,J w.P.lYo.4459L OF 2017

¶76

¶77

lengthy procedure and also consllmes a considerable length of time and as such definitely that is not the^{procedurethat is} 4equired^{to be followed while revisingthe marketvalue under} third proviso to Section 26(3) of the Act, 2013.^{No doubt a} learned Single Judge of this Court in^{W.P.M.P.No.52837 of} 2Ot7 in W.P.No.426l2 of 2017,^{while passing interim order} dated 27.12.2017,^{expresseda view that the issue as to} whether the collector^{himself can revisethp marketvalues or} tre should ask^{the commissionerand Inspector General of} RegistrationofstampsandRegistrationtogetarevisionof market values^{done is an interesting question to be decided in} thesaidWritPetition.ThesaidWritPetitionisstatedtobestill pending^{beforethis Court' That is only a pnma faae view} taken by^{the learned Single Judge 'of ttris Court at the} interlocutory^{sage' In the light of the reasoning given above'} this^{Court does not find any force in the contentionof the} learned^{counselfor the petitioner} g. In the^{light of the above and especially in the absenceof} any^{challengetothe proceedingsNo'G1 lO4l2OL7 dated} 0g.O9.2O17,^{whichis a proceedingissued in exerciseof power} underthethirdprovisotoSection26(3)oftheAct'2O13'this Courtisnotinclinedtoaccepttheconte4liopcfthelearned - *?