Dismissed¶47

Akbar Khan, v. The State of A.P.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 18, 12(2), 30, 31 – reference of award – limitation

Telangana HC6 Jan 2025WP/1759/2014

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Akbar Khan v. State of A.P. & Others, W.P. No.1759 of 2014, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 06.01.2025 by T. Vinod Kumar J. Keywords: Section 18 LA Act 1894 reference; Section 12(2) notice limitation (six weeks / two months); Sections 30 & 31 reference on title dispute; O.P.No.1046 of 2007, I Additional District Judge Nizamabad, order 01.12.2010; application dated 09.01.2011 submitted 24.02.2011 beyond time; refusal to refer upheld; writ petition dismissed without costs; no precedent relied upon by the Court.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ¶47

Akbar Khan, Vs The State of A.P. — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing (by order Ref. No.821112312011 dated 20.06.2012) to refer the petitioner's Section 18 application/protest applications to the Civil Court was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the L.A. Act. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In the considered view of this Court, the writ petition questioning the inaction of the respondents-authorities in referring the award to the Court on the petitioner's Section 18 application is without merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

A reading of Section 18 of the Act shows that a person aggrieved by the award must seek reference by applying to the authority within six weeks if present or represented before the Collector when the award was made, or, if not present or represented, within two months from the date of service of the Collector's notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner was fully aware of the land acquisition award, the same having been referred to the Court by the authority under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act on the dispute raised by Mohd.Noorulla; consequently the petitioner cannot claim not to have been aware of the award passed by the respondents-authorities.ratio¶41
Even accepting the petitioner's claim that he approached the authorities after the order in O.P.No.1046 of 2007 dated 01.12.2010 with a representation dated 09.01.2011, perusal shows the representation was submitted to the authority only on 24.02.2011, i.e., beyond the period prescribed under the Act, and therefore cannot be treated as having been filed in time.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 18, 12(2), 30, 31 — reference of award — limitation — writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Land Acquisition Officer's refusal (order Ref. No.821112312011 dated 20.06.2012) to refer the compensation dispute to the Civil Court — award dated 17.07.2006 (market value Rs.75,000/- per acre) had been referred under Sections 30 and 31 in a title dispute and decided in O.P.No.1046 of 2007 on 01.12.2010 — petitioner's application under Section 18 bearing date 09.01.2011 was in fact submitted only on 24.02.2011, beyond the prescribed period of six weeks/two months — petitioner, having been aware of the award, cannot plead ignorance — HELD: writ petition without merit; dismissed, no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1759 oF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Akbar Khan, S/o. Karimullah Khan Aged 43 years, H.No. 4-2-44, Aziz Street Bazar, Nizamabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State gf^A.P.,. n9g. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acqusition) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District., -

¶14

The Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned notice in order Ref. No.8211123120'1^'1 dated 20.06.2012 refusing to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 18 of the LA. Act in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2.29 guntas situated in Survey No. 293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad District pursuant to the order in O.P.No. 1046 of 2007 dated 01.12.2010 by considering the protest application dated 0g.Ol .2011 and 03.06.2011 as illegal arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the L.A. Act. Consequential diiection directing the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 1B of the L.A. Act in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2.29 guntas situated in Survey No.293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad by setting aside the impugned order Ref. No.821112312011 dated 20.06.2012

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 2107 OF 20141

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCottrt may be pleasedto} direct the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to^{the Civil Court under section 1B of} the L.A. Act in respect of land to an extent^{of Ac. 2-29 guntas situated in Survey} No.293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad^{District pursuant to the order in O.P.No.} '1046 of 2007 dated 01 .12.2O1O by suspending the impugned order in Ref. No. 82t112312011 dated 20.06.2012 and^{pass such other orrler or orders as this} Hon'ble Court may deem fit and^{proper in the circumstancesof the casepending} disposal of the above writ^petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH.^DHANAMJAYA

¶20

Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^{LAND ACQUISITION}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINODKUMAR}

¶24

Writ on No.1759 of 2O!4

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel^For the^{petitioner,.learnedGovernment} Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing^{for respondentNos.lto 3 and} perused the record.

¶27

The case of the^petitioner, in brief,^{is that on the respondents-} authorities initiating land acquisition^{proceedings for acquiringthe landin} Sy.No.293 situated at Sarangapur^{Village, Nizamabad Mandal, by issuing} draft notification under Section^{4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894(for} short, 'the Act'), dt.07.01.2005^{and declaration under Section 6 of the Act} on 07.01.2005 and 08.01.2005,^{an award enquiry was held on 31.05.2006} and an award was^passed on^{17.07.2006 fixing the market value of the} land acquired to be Rs.75,000/-^per acre^{with all statutory benefits.}

¶28

Petitioner further contends that since there^was a^{title dispute} between the^petitioner and one Mohd.Nurulla^{Khan S/o lateAkbarKhan in} respect of land in Sy.No.293 situated at Sarangapur^{Village, the authority} had made reference of the award under Sections^{30 and 31(2) of the Act} to the Civil Court; that on reference, the matter^{was taken up by the Civil} Court and numbered as O.P.No.1046 of²⁰⁰⁷ on^{the file of the I Additional} District Judge, Nizamabad; and that an order was^{passedin the} aforesaid O.P. on 01.12.2010.

¶29

¶30

Petitioner further contends that by virLue of the order dt.01.12.2010, passed by the Court in O.P.No.:[046 of 2007, the petitioner's title to the land to an extent of Acs.2.29 guntas in Sy.No.293 of Sarangapur Village, Nizamabad Mandal, acqlired under Award, dt.17.07.2001;, stood established and thus, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities and submitted an application dt.09.01.201 1 under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the award to the Court being aggrieved b1' the determination of market value, and in spite of he submitting the aforesaid application within time after^passing of the order by the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the said airplication made under Section 18 of the Act has not been referred to the Court, which action, it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

¶31

Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on the respondents-authorities^passing award on 17.07.2006, the^petitioner did not file any application under Section¹⁸ of the Act though the^proceedings are initiated in^{his name, while} the^said Mohd.Noorulla Khan had raised objection to the land acquisition proceeding, r,vherein the petitioner was shown as entitled to receive compensation in the land acquisition^proceeding raisinq a title dispute.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the^land acquisition^proceedings were initiated in the^{name of the petitioner itself,}

, I

-7

it is not open for him to claim and contend of^{he not being awareof the} land acquisition^proceeding, more so, having^{taken part in the proceedings} before the Court to which reference^{has been made} by the^Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 30 and 31^oF the^Act.

¶37

Learned Government Pleader further submits that^even otherwise, the petitioner on^passing of the order in^O.P.No.1046 of^2007on 01.12.2010 did not submit the application^{within time for the authoritiesto} consider, though the said application is dt.09.01.2011,^{the same was} submltted on 24.02.20LL, which is beyond the^{time prescribed underthe} Act.

¶38

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶39

A reading of Section 18 of the Act would show that a^person

¶40

aggrieved by the award^passed is required to seek^{reference by submitting} an application to the authority within a^period of six weeK,^if the^person making such application was present or represented before the Collector at the time when award was made or in the event of not being^present or represented before the Collector at the time of the award within two months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act.

¶41

In the facts of the present case, the^petitioner was fully aware of the land acquisition award passed by the authority and the same is being referred to the Court by the authority under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act,

¶42

¶43

(

¶44

having regarc to the dispute raised by one Mohd.Noorulla and thus, the petitioner cannot claim of not being aware of the aurard passed by the respondents-a uthorities.

¶45

Further, it is also to be noted that even by acr:epting the claim of the petitioner of he having approached the respondents-authorities on passing ofther order by the Court in O.P.No.1046 of2007 on 01.12.2010, by submittinq representation, dt.09.01.2011, a perusat of the said representatior would show that though the same is dated 09.01.2011, the same has been submitted to the authority on 24.02.2011 and thus, beyond the^period prescribed under the Act for the au:horities to consider the said application as having been filed in time.

¶46

In viev1, of the above, the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner questioning inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in referring the award to the Court by considering the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, in the considereC view of this Court is without mer t and is liable to be dismissed.

¶47