Allowed

Kacharolla Sayebanna, Mahaboobnagar Dist. and Ano v. the Spl. Dy. Collector, Mahabubnagar Dist.

Telangana HC14 Feb 2023WP/6909/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three writ petitions challenging a land acquisition award. It held that since physical possession of the land was not taken and compensation paid under the 1894 Act, the award lapsed under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, preserving the petitioners' rights as pattadars.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; award declared without effect of acquiring subject land; petitioners entitled to continue as pattadars.

Kacharolla Sayebanna, Mahaboobnagar Dist. and Ano Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS: 6909 OF 2011 11867 & 11868 0F 201 5

¶7

W.P.NO: 6909 OF 2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kacharolla Sayebanna, S/o. Balappa, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture. 2. Kacharolla Lakshmanna, S/o. Hanumanna, aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture.

¶10

Both are R/o. Makthal Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Spl. Dy. Collector, Rejeevgandhi Lift lrrigatlon Scheme Project Unit - I, Makthal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with the award no. 1612005 in No. B/ 2112005 dated 22.03.2007 issued by the respondent herein and to quash or set aside the same.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 8604 OF 2011)

¶17

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 respondent not to interfere with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment of lands of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 10.00 in Sy.no. 932 of Makthal Village, and Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the WP.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶19

W.P.NO: 11867 OF 2015

¶20

Between:

¶21

Kacharolla Lakshmanna, s/o. Hanmanna, aged 65 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Makthal (v) and (m), Mahabubnagar District.

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶25

The Special Collector (L.A), Mahabubnagar.

¶26

The Land Aquisition Officer/ Special Deputy Collector (LA), RLISP Unit-|, Makthal, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the orcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records relating to and connected with the Award No.16/2005 dated 22-03-2007 made by the 3rd Respondent herein pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to quash the proceedings to the extent of Petitioner land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts. in Sy. No.932 (new sy.no. 93212) of Makthal village and mandal, Mahabubnagar district as lapsed in terms of sec.24(2) of the Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 as the award in Award No.16/2005 dated 22-03-2007 made by the 3'd Respondent herein under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is made more than five years prior to the commencement of the Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and as the physical possession has not been taken arid compensation has not been paid.

¶29

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: '15683 OF 2015)

¶30

Petition under order 39 Rure 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to

¶31

-7

¶32

restrain lhe respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and en.joyment of the petitioner over the land to the extent of land admeasuring Ac. 5- 00 gts. in Sy.No.932 (new Sy.No 93212) of Makthal Village and lvlandal, IVlahabubnagar District without due process of law, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶34

W.P.NO: 11868 OF 2015

¶35

Between:

¶36

Kacharolla Sayebanna, S/o. Balappa, aged 65 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Makthal (v) and (m), Mahabubnagar District.

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Special Collector (LA), Mahabubnagar.

¶41

The Land Aquisition Officer/ Special Deputy Collector, (LA), RLISP Unit-|, Makthal, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records relating to and connected with the Award No.16/2005 dated 22-03-2007 made by the 3rd Respondent herein pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,^'1894 and to quash the proceedings to the extent of Petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts. in Sy. No.932/(new Sy.No.932/1) of Makthal village and mandal, Mahabubnagar district as lapsed in terms of sec.24(2) of the Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 201 3 as the award in Award No. 16/2005 dated 22-03-2007 made by the 3rd Respondent herein under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is made more than five years prior to the commencement of the Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-

¶44

¶45

settlement Act, 2013 and as the physical possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.

¶46

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 15684 OF 2015)

¶47

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land to the extent of land admeasuring Ac.0500 gts. in Sy.No.932^(new Sy No.932l1) of lt/akthal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

¶49

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶50

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶52

WRIT PETITION Nos.69O9 of 2011 11867 & 11868 of2O15

¶53

COMMON ORDER:

¶54

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for t and Acquisition appearing for the respondents. As the subject matter and the issue involved in these three writ petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶55

Initially, W.P.No.6909 of 2011 was filed by two pctitioners questioning the award No.16 of 2005 passed in File No.B/21/2OO5, dated 22.O3.2OO7, by the respondent - Special Deputy Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'L.A.O. J on the ground that though the land of the petitioners admeasuring Acs.5.OO each situated in Survey No.932 of Makthal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, was shown to have been acquired and the names have been notihed in the said award, but some third party names were notilied. During pendency of the said writ petition on the advert of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13 (for short, 'the Act, 2013'), the petitioners in W.P.No.6909 ot 2011 filed two separate

¶56

¶57

\'rit pctitions, being W.P.No.11867 and 11868 of 2015, questioning the vcry same arvard taking aid lrom the provisions of the Act, 2013.

¶58

¶59

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners are not notified in the award in respect of the subject property and no compensation is paid to the petitioners for the subject land, totally admcr,rsuring Acs. 10.OO, nor the same was deposited before an1' competent civil Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land and the Irrigation Canal for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is already formed, but the lands of the petitioners are neither acquired nor affected for the said purpose. It is further stated that the petitioners have been conducting agriculture activities and there is a standing crop on the subject land, as on date.

¶60

In the counter aflidavit fiied by tle Land Acquisition Officer in W.P.No.6909 of 2011 at paragraph No.9 thereof, it is stated that though the impugned award was passed in respect of the subject land, but due to typographical error, the names of the petitioners are not shown in the said award and the names

¶61

¶62

¶63

of third parties are included in the said award. The relcvant

¶64

portion in the counter affidavit reads as under:

¶65

"...The award for balance Acs. lO.0O cents was passed on 22.O3.2OO7 in favour of Kancharoila Sayanna, S/o. Balappa and Kancharolla Balappa, S/o Hanumanthu instead of petitioners viz., Kancharolla Chinna Saibanna, S/o. Balappa and Kancharolla Laxmanna, S/o. Munnur Hanmanna by oversight which is a clerical error while passing award."

¶66

5" In the light of the specilic contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners about the petitioners being in possession and conducting agriculture activities and also taking into consideration the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, this Court by an order dated 25.01.2023 directed the respondents to bring to the notice of this Court about the actual physical status of the land in question and passed the following order:

¶67

"...Heard Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for [.and Acquisition.

¶68

A perusal of the material on record shows that the award in respect of the subject lands were passed basing upon the alleged consent said to have been given by the petitioners agreeing for certain amount of compensation. But, it is an admitted fact that in the award in question, the names of the petitioners are not shown and the name of some third parties are mentioned against the land of

¶69

¶70

the petilioners alrd petitioners never put on notice, while passing the said award.

¶71

According to the learned counsel for t1 e petitioners, the petiLioners are still continuing to be in possession of the lands admeasuring Acs.5.00 gts., and Acs.5.O0 gts., respectively in Sy.No.932 of Makthal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶72

¶73

ln the circumstances, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is directed to ascertain the physical status of the subject lar.rds admeasuring Acs.S.OO gts., and Acs.5.0O gts., respectively in Sy.No.932 and also to producc the record relating to the alleged consent said to have been given by the petitioners, for passing t1.e impugned award.

¶74

Post the matter on O4.O2.2O23 under the caption 'for orders'-

¶75

Pursuant to the above order, the survey is stated to have been conductcd by the respondents and the written instructions that are furnished to the learned Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition are placed before this Court.

¶76

From a perusal of the written instructions, it is noticed that the subject land admeasuring Acs. 10.00 is still in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and as on date the cotton and paddy crops are standing on the subject land. It is also evident that the lrrigation Canal for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is already formed and the

¶77

a--

¶78

¶79

same is put to use by using an extent of Acs.3.85 cents from out of total extent of Acs.13.85 cents in Survey No.932 and the balance extent of Acs. 1O.00 of land is still in possession of the petitioners herein.

¶80

8, Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition lairly submitted that the possession of the subject land was not taken and compensation was also not paid to the petitioners nor the same was deposited before the competent authorit5r or any other authority.

¶81

{: (

¶82

In the light of the above and taking into consideration the fact that the Irrigation Canal is already formed and the land belonging to the petitioners is not utilized and no compensation is paid, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 24 of the Act, 2O13.

¶83

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned award is hereby declared as not having effect of acquiring the subject land belonging to the petitioners ald they are entitled to continue as pattadars of their respective lands, without there being any interference by the respondents. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the respondents feel that the subject land is required for any public purpose in

¶84

l I

¶85

¶86

future, they are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in

¶87

accordance r!.ith larv by follou'ing the provisions of the Act, 2013.

¶88

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ

¶89

petitions shall stand closed.

¶90

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGIStrRAR / t/

¶91

,TRUE COPY// t/ SECTION dFTICER

¶92

\ To

¶93

The Land Acquisition Officer Spl Dy Collector, Rejeevgandhi Lift lrrigation Scheme Project Unit - l, Makthal. tulahabubnagar District. 2. The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat. Hyderabad. 3. The Special Collector (L.A), Mahabubnagar. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI C B.RAN/ IUOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI i/.V SUBBA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies PS K,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410212023

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.6909 of 2011; 11867 & 11868 ot 2015

¶99

n sr. THE S r4
a)
t; 10 frH ?t,n t

¶100

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶101

)
-
t>

Kacharolla Sayebanna, Mahaboobnagar Dist. and Ano v. the Spl. Dy. Collector, Mahabubnagar Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kacharolla Sayebanna, Mahaboobnagar Dist. and Ano v. the Spl. Dy. Collector, Mahabubnagar Dist.

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

Parrepati Chandraiah, Vs The Tahsildar, Mothkur Mandal

Kudukuntla Nandini Vs The State of Telangana 3 others

Shaik Jani Pasha, Vs The State of Telangana

Cherukuri Finance India Limited Vs State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary

Kacharolla Lakshmanna Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthalapally Venkata Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others