Dattatri Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ or Direction or an Order which^particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in^{not paying} compensation to the^petitioner, acquiring the lands of the^{petitioner for the purpose} of railway track in respect of the^petitioner land in Sy.No.^{243 to an extentof Ac. 3-} 20 guntas situated at Zaheerabad village and Mandal, Sanga^{Reddydistrict as is} illegal, arbitrary and being violative of Articles 14,21 and 300A^{of the Constitution} of lndia and consequently direct the respondents^{to pay the compensation to the} petitioner in respect of the petitioner above mentioned lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,^{Rehabilitationand} Resettlement Act, 20'l 3.

¶17

I I

¶18

lA NO:^'l OF 2024

¶19

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 respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner land in respect of Sy.No. 243 to an extent of Ac. 3-20 guntas situated at Zaheerabad village and Mandal, sanga Reddy district acquired for the purpose of railway track forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD IQBAL ALI JAVID Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Gp FOR LAND ACeUISITION Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: -

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

_^{d.fiti$ lf.---}

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶24

W.P.No.3 LLaS of 2o.24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents No.l to 4 and perused the record.

¶27

2' Having regard to the nature of Iis involved and the manner of disposal of this writ petition, this court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.S is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶28

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his father, late Anantha Rao, was pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent ofAcs. 6.20 gts in survey No.243 situated at Zatreerabad Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy Distiict; that out of the aforesaid extent of land, the respondentsauthorities, in particular, the Sd respondent_authorit5z had laid a railway track to an extent of Acs.3.20 gts. in the year 196g, without paying any compensation, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles t4, 21, 19 and 3ooA of the constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

¶29

2

¶30

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 13 (for short 'the Act') and to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of the Act

¶31

It is the further case of the petitioner that since, the existence of railway track in the land belonging to his father is^not in. dispute and as the respondents-authorities have failed^to furnish a copy of the Award passed, it is to be^presumed that^the said land was acquired without initiating any land^acquisition proceedings and without paylng compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894), and thus, he is entitled for payment of compensation in^{respect of the} land belonging to his father.

¶32

Per contra, leamed Government Pleader^{for Land Acquisition} submits that the^present Writ^Petition filed^{by the petitioner} claiming to be the son of late Anantha^{Rao, S/o Nago Rao, seeking} compensation in respect of land acquisition^{proceedingsthathave} been initiated in the year 1968, is'^{without any basis to} substantiate the aforesaid claim.

¶33

I have taken note of the respective^{contentionsurged.}

¶34

The petitioner in the present Writ^{Petition as stated in the} allidavit is 41 years of age as of^{date, therebyhaving born in the} year 198211983.

\ \

lii

3

I

As per the petitioner,s own admission, his father was owner and possessor as pattadar of land to an extent of Acs. 6.20 gts in survey No.243 situated at Z,aheerabad Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District and the respondents_authorities having laid a railway track in the year 196g. Admittedly, the petitioner was not even born at the time when the railway track was laid in the land belonging to late Ananth Rao, for the petitioner now to claim such laying of Railway tack was done without initiating any land acquisition proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without paying any compensation thereunder.

¶40

Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner while claiming that the respondents_authorities having acquired the land belonging to his father without initiating any proceedings and paying compensation, has not placed any material to show that his father, late Ananth Rao, was himself agitating against the said acquisition either by approaching the authorities or before any competent forum, for the petitioner .ro* to .l"i- as continuing the said claim after the demise of his father, though not having been born at the relevant point of time.

¶41

On the other hand, the only basis for the petitioner in approaching this Court after lapse of 56 years after the 5e respondent had laid railway track, is that on approaching the respondents-authorities, he not being provided witJl a copy of the

¶42

('/

¶43

4

¶44

Award^{passed acquiring the said iand of his father and thus' it rs} to be^{presumedthat the said laid havingbeen acquired without} initiating^{any proceeding and withoutpaying compensation' it is to} be noted^{that as per the provisionsof Pubtic Records Act' 1993} R/r;v Public^{RecordRules' i997'the general recordretentionperiod} is 25^{years, and since' the petitioner admit to the fact of the} respondents-authorities^{having laid railwaytrack in the year 1968'} he cannot^{lay any claimsolely on the groundof non-furnishingof} award^{copy, for this Courtto entertainthe presentwrit Petition'}

¶45

It^{is also to be noted that merelyon the basis of the person} approaching^{the respondents-authoritiesseekingfor furnishing of} a copy^{of the Award and on the Award copy not beingfurnished'as} not being^{available' would not byitself amountstothe} respondents-authorities^{having acquiredthe land without initiating} any^{proceedings under the Act'L8g4 orwithout paying} compensation^{to the owner at the relevantpoint of time' for their} siblings,^{who are born subsequently' to approach this Courtunder} Arttcle^{226 of the Constitutionof India' challengingthe action of} the respondents^{craiming that the rand belonging to their father} having^{been acquired without paying any compensation,and the} said acdon^{being illegal' arbitraryor violative of Articles 14' 19' 2t} and 300A^{of the Constitutionof Iidia' moreparticularly'when the} pattadar^{and possessor during his life time did not seekto initiate} t.\

¶46

5

¶47

any action against the alleged illega_lity. If the claims of the present nature are entertained without any basis, the same would constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice

¶48

In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view .^{that the presentWrit petitionas filed,} apart from devoid of merit, is purely a chance litigation and is clearly an abuse of process of law. Thus, the Writ petition is liable to dismissed with exemplary costs, as held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Dngandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya prakqsh Khad.ekarl and. Charu Kishor Mehta o.

¶49

Prq.kash Patel & Others2.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.r0,0o0/- (Rupees Ten rhousand) to be paid to the Terangana High Court Advocates Association within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶52

these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶53

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

¶54

Costs Quantified by Hon ble Court (That the Petitioner herein and Counsel for the petitioner are qrpcted to pay costs of Rs,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in favour of the Telangana High Cou( Advocates Association, High CorJrt for t6e State .of . Telangana, HiSh eourt Buitdings, Hyderabad within a period ofiour (04).

Rs. Ps-

I

10,000-00

TOTAL

:(20'l7) 5 SCC 496 '2022 SCC Online SC 1962

¶60

10,000-00