Aggu Ashanna, Adilabad Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

Aggu Ashanna, Adilabad Dist and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition were directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not making a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the petitioners' application dated 01.07.2015 (concerning serial Nos. 174 and 176 of the general award in Proceedings No. N924/2010 dated 31.12.2014) is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

Court's answer

The present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in not making reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary under the Act.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot claim ignorance of the passing of the award, as notice dt.02.04.2015 was issued calling upon them to appear before the authority on 18.04.2015 and they appeared on that date.

Key takeaways

The notice dt.02.04.2015 is to be construed as a notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; consequently, the application seeking reference to court under Section 18 in relation to apportionment of compensation was required to be filed within two months of its issue, i.e., on or before 01.06.2015.ratio¶¶66
The application filed on 01.07.2015 was beyond the time prescribed under the Act, and the authority could not have referred it by condoning the delay, no such power being conferred on the authority under the Act; the petitioners therefore cannot be said to be aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authority in not making reference to Court.ratio¶¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12(2) and 18 - Reference to court - Apportionment of compensation. Five Aggu siblings, excluded from compensation for serial Nos. 174 and 176 of the general award in Proceedings No. N924/2010 (award dt.31.12.2014) passed without considering their objections, applied on 01.07.2015 for reference under Section 18. The Court construed the notice dt.02.04.2015 calling them to appear before the authority as a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, so the Section 18 application had to be filed within two months, i.e., on or before 01.06.2015. Filed on 01.07.2015, it was beyond the prescribed period, and the acquiring authority has no power to condone delay in filing such an application; the refusal to refer the dispute to the civil court was therefore neither illegal nor arbitrary. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. (T. Vinod Kumar, J.; High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; 20-01-2025.)

[³¹⁶⁶¹

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

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

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITIONN O: 20301 OF 201s

Between:

'1. AGGU ASHANNA, S/o Rajaiah aged 46 years, Occ Agriculture

Aggu Narasaiah, S/o Rajaiah aged 42 years Occ Agriculture

Aggu Sathaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged 35 years Occ Agriculture

Aggu Venkatesh, S/o Rajaiah aged 32 years Occ Agriculture

s. 39.s, Srinivas, s/o Rajaiah ?ggd.2r years occ Agricurture Ail Ri/o singapur Village, Mancheriat Mahdal, Adilabad District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

'l . The state of reranoana, Rep. by the principar Secretary (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderjbad.

The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

The Land Acquisition officer-cum-RDo, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District.

+SSu Chinnakka, Wo Lingaiah, aggq 80 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Tallapa[y Viilage, Mancheirial Maridat, Adilabad Oistrici.

Namala Mallaiah(died) perLrs.,

Namala B.ho.omaiah, S/o Late Mafiaiah, aged 40 years, occ Aqricurture. R/o Singapur Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adi"labad O'iJtrici

Namala T.h.irypathj, S/o Late.Mallai.af', gg.gd 37 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Singapur Village, Mancheriat Mandat, AditabaO biitri6t.

B. Namala Ramesh, S/o Late.Mallaiafr,.age.{ Q3 years, Occ Agriculture, Rt/o Singapur Village, Mancherial Mandal, Aaitanai Oistrict

,..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tne Higrr^'C&.t ,ry o" pleased to pass the writ or order or one in the nature of writ of mandamus in declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not referring the oisfut; ,ndu," section 1B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the civil "ori by.onrio"iing tn"

petitioners application dated 1-7-2o1s in so far as the serial No.i74 and 176 of general award in proceedings No. N924t2010 dated 31-.12-2014 as illegat, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act up".t iro* gross violation of Articles 14,21 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to refer the dispute in so far as the serial I^o:1-1+^{and 176 of generaraward in proceedingsNo. N924r2o10} dated 3t-tz2O14 to the civil court

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(wP MP. NO: 26160 OF 201s)

Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine rign court may oe pleas"oio oirect the 3rd respondent not to disburse the land lcquisition iompensation to the respondents 4 to B in so far as the serial No.1 74 & 1 76 of generar award in proceedings No. N92412010 dated3l-12-2014, ending disposal o"rtre wrif peiition

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Between:

Aggu Chinnakka, W/o Linoaiah,.a.geg g9 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Tailapally Village, Mancheriat MandSt, Aditadad oairiJ^{-' ---'''}

...P8:TITIONERS

AND

1 I!:.9J9!:_qf Tetangana. R.ep. by the principat Secretary (Land Acqutsttton), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

e IE Land Acquisition officer-cum-RDO, Mancheriat Mandal, Adilabad District

Namala Mallaiah(died) per Lrs.,

Namala Bhoomaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, qSgd 40 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Singapur Viflage, Mancherial MandatiAoitaOio Oidtrict-

Namala T.h.ippathi, S/o,Late.Mallai.af,, gSgQ 37 years, Occ Agriculture, Ft/o Singapur Viltage, Mancheriat Mandat, AdiiaUia biitrict

Namala Ramesh, S/o Late. Mallaiah,.aged 33 years, Occ Agriculture, Ri/o Singapur Viilage, Mancheriat Mandat, AOitaUli Oftiict

AGGU ASHANNA, S/o Rajaiah aged 46 years, Occ Agriculture

Aggu Narasaiah, S/o Rajaiah aged 42 years OccAgriculture

10.Aggu Sathaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged 35 years Occ Agriculture

11.Aggu Venkatesh, S/o Rajaiah aged 32 years Occ Agriculture

12.Aggu Srinivas, S/o Raja.iah. .ag9d ll years Occ Agriculture All R/o SingapurViilage, Manch6riat Maidat, aOidoio Oiitrict. "

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under section 'r5'l..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Htgn Corrr ruv LJ o,*""0 " vacate the above said interim orders dated 10-7_201 5

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. p LAKSHMA REDDY

counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR LAND AceursrfloN

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A ANANDA CHARY

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 to g: __

The Court made the following: ORDER

a

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Wri t N 203 1 01

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri A.Ananda Chary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and perused the record.

The case of the petitioners in brief is that aggrieved by the Award dt.31.12.20r4 passed by the respondents-authorities by not considering the petitioners' objections to the rand acquisition and arso to their exclusion for receiving the compensation/apportionment of compensation, they had submitted apprication dt.01.07.2015 seeking reference to court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94 (for short, .the Act); and in spite of the petitioners submitting the aforesaid apprication, the respondents-authorities have faired to make a reference to court with regard to the apportionment of compensation, which action of the respondents, it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act.

Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalF of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the respondents_authorities on passing of the Award dt.3l.t2.21l4 have issued notice dt.02.04.2015 ca'ing upon the petitioners to appear before the authorities on 18.04.2015

.-

2

at 11.00 am along with^{documentary evidencein suppotof their claim for} payment of land comPensation.

4.LearnedGovernmentPleaderfurthersubmitsthatthoughthe petitioners had appeared before^{the authorityon the said date' as no} documentary^{evidence in supportof their claim for payment of} compensationlapportionment^{ofcompensation was submitted'the} authority did^{not pay the compensationamount to the petitioners'}

Learned Government^{Pleader also submits that the petitioners} having appeared^{before the authorities, pursuantto thenotice} dt.02.04.2015,on1B.04.2015,hadsubmiftedtheirapplicationon 01.07.2015^{under Section 16 of the Act beyond the period of two months} prescribed unde!- sub-section^{(2Xb) of Section18 of the Act (as applicable} in the erstwhile^{Stateof Andhra Pradesh)' Learned GovernmentPleader} would also contend^{that as the applicationseeking referenceto Court} under Section^{18 of the Act is filed beyond the period prescribed' the said} application^{has not been considered by the authority'inasmuchas the} authority^{is not conferred with the power to condonethe delay in filing the} application seeking^{referenceto the Court'}

I have taken note^{ofthe respective contentions urged'}

7 Though the^{petitioners had claimedof they not being aware of the} award^{passed by the respondents-authoritiesdt'31'!2-2014'the}

J

petitioners cannot claim ignorance of passing of the award, as notice dt.02.04.2015 has been issued cailing upon them to appear before the authority on 18.04.2015, and the petitioners having appeared on the said date before the authority. Thus, the notice dt.02.04.2015 has to be construed as a notice issued under section 12(2) oF the Act and thus,.the 'petitioners are required to file an application seeking reference to court under section 18 of the Act in relation to appoftionment of compensation, within a period oF two months from the date of issue of notice under section 12(2) of the Act. Thus, if the notice dt.02.04.2015 is taken as a base as per Section I2(2) of the Act, the application filed under Section 18(2Xb) of the Act is required to be filed on or before 01.06.2015.

Admittedty, the petitioners filed application only on OL.O7.ZOIS, which is beyond the time prescribed under the Act, and as such, the authority courd not have referred the same by condoning the delay in such filing in absence of any such power being conferred on him under the Act. since, the application fired by the petitioners is beyond the time prescribed under the Act, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the action of respondent-authority in not making reference to Court.

Accordingry, this court is of the view that the present writ petition as fired questioning the action of the respondents in not making reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary under the Act.

I

.-

4

10.^{For the aforesaid reasons' the Writ Petitionhas to fail and is} accordingly^{dismissed' No orderas to costs'}

11.^{Miscelraneouspetitions, if any, pendingin this writ petitionshall}

stand^closed. SD DEPUTY h';[t'illt / IITRUE^COPY'I OF^FICER SE

to'., on"^{ccto sRr P LAK'HN^AREDDY1t'"1j:::,"} ^.,^^nr ; ;^{l" . ."-l:SJ,"^Hl,iHil,'ffi.J""* ror the state or}

. +:8""r*::35'5'

4.^{Two CD Copies}

KKS KKS

u

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010112025

ORDER

.,
.$
$*
o (.,.
u.
/ "t
I +

WP.No.20301 of 2015

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

7 /z ,<^/rzqr4/

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of the 3rd respondent (Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO, Mancherial) in not referring the dispute concerning serial Nos. 174 and 176 of the general award in Proceedings No. N924/2010 (award dt.31.12.2014) to the civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, despite the petitioners' application dated 01.07.2015; challenged as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act and in gross violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.¶¶56
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District (3rd respondent)
Prior proceeding
Award dt.31.12.2014 passed by the respondents-authorities (Proceedings No. N924/2010, serial Nos. 174 and 176) without considering the petitioners' objections to the land acquisition and excluding them from receiving compensation/apportionment of compensation.¶¶56
Prior proceeding
Notice dt.02.04.2015 issued by the respondents-authorities after passing of the Award, calling upon the petitioners to appear before the authorities on 18.04.2015 (per the Government Pleader, along with documentary evidence in support of their claim for payment of land compensation).¶¶57
Prior proceeding
Petitioners appeared before the authority on 18.04.2015 pursuant to the notice dt.02.04.2015.¶¶66
Prior proceeding
Application seeking reference to court under Section 18 of the Act filed by the petitioners only on 01.07.2015, i.e., beyond the prescribed period.¶¶67
Prior proceeding
Contention of the Government Pleader: the application seeking reference to Court under Section 18 was filed beyond the two-month period prescribed under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 18 (as applicable in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh), and the authority, not being conferred with power to condone the delay, did not consider it.¶¶62
Prior proceeding
Interim orders dated 10-07-2015 had been passed in the writ petition (IA No.1 of 2015 / WP MP No.26160 of 2015 having sought that compensation not be disbursed to respondents 4 to 8 pending disposal); IA No.1 of 2018 by Aggu Chinnakka sought vacatur of those interim orders.¶¶46