Kirthi Balaraju, Vs The District Collector, Karimnagar District.

Adduri Parvathalu @ China Parvathalu,^{S/o Sailoo, Aged about 67 Yrs, Occ} Agriculture, R/o La-dnapur Village,^{Mutharam(MNT) Mandal,Karimnagar} District

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The District Collector, Karimnagar^District.

¶13

The Special Deputv Collector, L.A.^{(Land Acquisition)UnitSCCL(Singareni} Collieries Compbni Ltd.,) Godavarikhani,^{Karimnagar District.}

¶14

J The Soecial Deputv Tahsildar, L.A.^{(LandAcquisition) Unit, SCCL (Singareni} Collieries Comp'ani Ltd.,) Godavarikhani,^{Karimnagar District.}

¶15

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,^{(SCCL),Representedits General} Manager] Singareni Collieries' C6mpany^{Ltd., Ramagundam'Area -lll,} Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

¶16

5 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal.Secretary, Department} of Revenue, Secretariat of Tillangana,^{Tank Bund, Hyderabad.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or order or direction^{moreparticularly in the nature of writ} of Mandamus declaring the inaction^{of the Respondent No.2 in not referringthe} section 18 Petitions to^{the civil} court,^{Petitions filed by the Petitionerson} 15-01-2013 in Award No.4t2O12-13,^{No-82117512010,dated-24-12-2012as} arbitrary, illegal and vir:lation^{of principleof natural justice and also violation of} Section I 8 of Land Acquisit'ron^{Act, 1 894 and also violationof Article14 of the} constitution of lndia^{consequentlydirect the Respondent No.2 to refer Section1B}

¶19

I

¶20

/

¶21

Petitions filed by the Petitioners on 15-01-2013 to the civil court for determination of compensation in Award No.4t2012-1i, No.P,21175t2010, dated24-12-2012.

¶22

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2015(WP MP. NO: 15134 oF 2015)

¶23

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Award passed by the 2nd Respondent vide Award No.4/20 1 2-1 3, B2l 17 5 t20'1 0, dated : 24-1 2-20 12.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y.BALAJI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.i to 3 & S: cp FOR LAND trCeUlSlTlON Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI p.SRl HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

I ll 1j I I I II I I !I I I I i

¶27

//

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.I145l of 2015

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, leamed Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behaif of respondent

¶32

No.4, and perused the record.

¶33

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in briel is that though the respondent authorities have^passed consent award on 24-12-2012, the petitioners aggrieved by the compensation determined thereunder had approached the respondent authorities and submitted application dated I5-01-201i (filed on 28-01-2013) seeking reference to Court under Section t8 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shor-t 'the Act') lor determination ol the market value of the structure. and in spite of'petitioners submitting the aforesaid application. the same has not been considered, which action on the part of the respondent authorities, it is contended as illegal and arbitrary.

2

ir

1i

Per contra, learned Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition and leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respond(:nts on the other hand submits that the eLward passed is a consent rward in respect ol land to an extent o I Ac.294.3% gts situated at Ladnapur village, Peddapalli District; that the petitioners have also expressed their willingness to receive compensation under consent arvard by executing an affidavit in Form-IV, and that the authoritics on the basis of the consent award have also made paylnent to the petitioners.

¶38

Learned Govemment Pleader and leamed Standing Counsel further submit that the petitioners after receiving the compensation amount under consent award, as an after thought, have approached the respondent authorities and submitted application under Section I 8 o1- the Act seeking :r.eference, which course ol action is not permitted, in view of the fact that petitioners themselves having agreed for compensation amount, have indicated their consent in lu.iting lor passing of consent award.

¶39

5 I have taken note of respccti'".c contentions urged.

3

,II ilt!Iit

1t i{ lrllli

llit l !i;iil iri lir I i

¶44

/'

¶45

A reading of the award shows that the petitioners^have agreed for settlement of compensation under Negotiations^Rules, 1992 rlw Section I 1(2) of the Act, and the respondent authorities accordingly^paid compensation thereunder. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners have agreed to receive the compensation under consent award by taking^part in the negotiations meeting held, whereby the pay'mcnt ol cornpensation has been finalized as package deal under the A.P. Land Acquisition^{(Negotiations} Committee) Rules, 1992, subject to condition that the^land owners shall not agitate lbr enhanced compensation in any Court of larv under Section l8 olthe Act.

¶46

As the petitioncrs her e agreed to receive the compensation as package deal under the said Rules, more particularly having also filed an affidavit in [.orm-IV with the concemed authorities on 02-05-20 I l, it is not open lor the petitioners thereafter to tum around to approach thc respondent authorities and submit application under Scction l8 ol'the Act seeking reference to Court claiming that thc\ are only sanctioned compensation in respect of land and not in rcspect of the structures. It is to be

4

I I i I I I I i I I

I

I^I

noted that there cannot be any piece_meal adjudication of land acquisition proceedings consisting of land and structure thereon and thus, the claim of the petitioners of. the respondent authorities not making reference to Court by considering their application submitted on 2g_01_2013, in rhe considered view of this Court, is devoid of merit and has to lail.

¶52