SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, November 26, 2023

Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2023 SCC OnLine TS 3559

In the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

(BEFORE ALOK ARADHE, C.J. AND N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)

Madanlal Vijay Kumar

Versus
State of Telangana
Writ Appeal No. 1614 of 2017
Decided on October 20, 2023
The Order of the Court was delivered by
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.:— Heard Mr. Madanlal Vijay Kumar, party-
in-person as appellant and learned Government Pleader for Land
Acquisition, appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and perused the
material made available on record.
2. This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who
is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 35113 of 2015, against the order
dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P. No. 35113 of 2015 by the learned
Single Judge.
3. The case of the appellant/petitioner, in brief, is that the
appellant/petitioner initially filed W.P. No. 12429 of 2007 challenging
the Proceedings No. G2/2023/2007, dated 25.05.2007 issued by the 1st
respondent therein proposing to acquire the property of the
appellant/petitioner without following due process of law and
consequently sought to set aside the proceedings dated 25.05.2007.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the said writ petition on
02.01.2014 by setting aside the Proceedings No. G2/2023/2007, dated
25.05.2007 and the appellant/petitioner was permitted to file his
objections before the respondent authorities within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and after filing the
objections within the time stipulated, the respondents were directed to
issue notice to the appellant/petitioner fixing the date of enquiry and
proceed in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner also filed W.P. No. 27982 of
2014 questioning the notification issued on 24.05.2007 under Section 4
(1) of Act, 1894 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on 19.09.2014 leaving it open to the appellant/petitioner
to agitate his grievance as and when orders are passed by the
competent authority and the Land Acquisition Officer. Assailing the
same, the appellant/petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 1413 of
2014 and the same was closed as infructuous.
5. Subsequently, the respondents authorities have proceeded with
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Sunday, November 26, 2023
Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter issued a
declaration under Section 6 of the Act afresh on 17.10.2014 and
subsequently passed an award on 05.02.2015. Aggrieved by the said
award dated 05.02.2015, the appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No. 35113
of 2015 challenging the entire proceedings including the award passed
by the respondent No. 4, vide File No. A/94/2007, dated 05.02.2015,
stating that the entire proceedings starting from notification under
Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, which culminated in the award dated
05.02.2015 are void and have lapsed.
CONTENTIONS of THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
6. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition contended that
respondent authorities did not pass the award within two years from
the notification dated 24.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act
and as such, the impugned award cannot be sustained. He would
further contend that in view of the provisions of Section 24 of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 20132 (herein called ‘Act 30 of 2013’) entire
proceedings have lapsed. It is further contended that in fact, no fresh
assessment as per Section 4 to 8 of Act 30 of 2013 was carried out and
the provisions of Sections 11 to 15, 19 and 20 of the Act 30 of 2013
were not followed and no revision of market rate was undertaken as
envisaged under Section 26 of Act 30 of 2013. Further, the respondents
did not correctly fix the compensation amount as per the Act 30 of
2013.
7. Apart from the above, the appellant/petitioner filed his written
submissions in two parts. In Part-I, appellant/petitioner submitted that
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.10.2014 afresh
pursuant to the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 12429 of 2007
on 02.01.2014. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed
to observe that the old Act was lapsed on 31.12.2013 two days earlier
to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12429 of 2007 i.e., on
02.01.2014 and the new Act has come into effect from 01.01.2014 one
day before the said order. Hence, the respondents have to follow
Sections 8 to 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013. It is further
submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the
conclusion from the wrong statement made in the counter-affidavit filed
by the respondents that the compensation is determined as per Section
24 read with Section 27 of the Act 30 of 2013. It is further submitted
that the learned Single Judge has erred to see that the Collector has
not at all taken any steps to revise and update the market value of the
land on the basis of prevalent market rate, which is mandatory under
Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013.
8. In the Part-II of the written submissions, the appellant/petitioner
contends that the compensation award is very meagre and prays to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Sunday, November 26, 2023
Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

direct the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority

where the case of the appellant/petitioner is pending under Section 64,
which is numbered as LAOP. No. 37 of 2019 for fair market value and
compensate the appellant/petitioner as per the prevalent market rate
as mandated in Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act 30 of 2013 and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
CONTENTIONS of THE REPSONDENTS:
9. On a perusal of writ-affidavit material papers, the Special Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, Hyderabad filed counter in W.P. No.
35113 of 2015 stating that earlier appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No.
31998 of 2014, challenging the 5-A enquiry orders of the Collector, R.R.
District wherein a counter was filed. Further, the appellant/petitioner's
brothers also filed W.P. No. 4985 of 2015 challenging the draft
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, published on 17.10.2014.
10. In the counter in W.P. No. 35113 of 2015 it is submitted that
the W.P. No. 12429 of 2007 was filed by the appellant/petitioner and
the same was allowed by this Court on 02.01.2014. In pursuance to the
order dated 02.01.2014, the 5-A enquiry notices have been issued to
the appellant/petitioner on 31.05.2014, 24.06.2014 and 21.07.2014
and after receiving the objections and upon personal hearing of the
appellant/petitioner, the remarks of the Assistant City Planner, were
obtained and 5-A enquiry notices were finalized and subsequent
proceedings were issued by the Collector, Ranga Reddy district holding
that it is not possible to revert back by issuing fresh 4(1) notification
and action would be taken to issue Draft Declaration under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, the draft declaration was
published on 17.10.2014. It is further submitted that the respondent
authorities have issued an award enquiry notices under Section 9(1) &
10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in response to the notices, the
appellant/petitioner attended the award enquiry and raised objections
to stall the award enquiry proceedings in view of his W.P. No. 31998 of
2014 pending before this Court and the respondent authorities have
proceeded with the award enquiry and award was passed on
15.02.2015 as there was no stay orders to stall the award enquiry
proceedings. It is further submitted that in the award enquiry
proceedings, the brothers of the appellant/petitioner have raised rival
claims and as such, the compensation amount was deposited in the
City Civil Court, for apportionment and adjudication. Subsequently,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar, has invoked the provisions
of Section 91 of the Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013 and the
appellant/petitioner's property was taken into possession for execution
of road widening works.
11. It is further submitted that though two writ petitions were
pending and no stay orders were granted by this Court and after
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Sunday, November 26, 2023
Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

disposing of the 5-A objections by the District Collector, R.R. District,

the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has
been published on 17.10.2014. It is further submitted that in view of
the stay orders granted in W.P. No. 12429 of 2007, the acquisition
proceedings could not be taken up and that the said W.P. No. 12429 of
2007 vide order dated 02.01.2014 was allowed and the draft
declaration dated 25.05.2007 was set aside and directed the
appellant/petitioner to file objections and accordingly the Collector
disposed of the objections and ordered to proceed further by issuing
draft declaration as such, there was no lapse of draft declaration in view
of the stay order dated 02.01.2014.
12. It is further submitted that this Court has not set aside the 4(1)
notification dated 24.05.2007 and therefore, after disposing of the
objections of the appellant/petitioner, the District Collector published
the draft declaration and the appellant/petitioner attended the award
enquiry and requested to stall the award proceedings. It is further
submitted that since no stay orders were granted by this Court, award
proceedings were concluded on 15.02.2015 as per Section 24(1) (A)
read with Section 27 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of
2013). It is further submitted that during award proceedings, the
appellant/petitioner and his brothers raised rival claims over the
acquired property as such compensation was deposited in the Court for
adjudication. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner has remedy under
Section 64 of the New (Act 30 of 2013) for enhancement of
compensation. Finally, it is submitted that though the acquisition
proceedings have been initiated prior to the commencement of 2013
Act, however, as per provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, since the
award has not been made under the 1984 Act, the respondent
authorities followed 2013 Act for the purpose of computation of
compensation and that in the present case, Section 24 of the 2013 Act
has been followed for the purpose of computation only.
SUBMISSIONS:
13. However, on behalf of the respondents, the learned Government
Pleader for Land Acquisition appeared and while reiterating the
submissions earlier made by the learned Advocate General in the writ
petition, inter alia, submitted that there was neither illegality nor there
exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned proceedings as the
respondents meticulously and scrupulously adhered to Section 24 of
the Act of 2013 and followed all the mandatory requirements of law.
Further, the issues raised in writ petition were not maintainable for any
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
contention of the appellant/petitioner that the entire proceedings have
lapsed in view of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 is not correct and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Sunday, November 26, 2023
Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, if the appellant/petitioner

has any grievance with regard to the quantum of compensation, it is
always open for him to approach the authorities under the provisions of
the Act 30 of 2013. Eventually, it is submitted that the learned Single
Judge has rightly considered the case of the appellant/petitioner and
passed the impugned order and therefore, no interference of this Court
is required.
ANALYSIS:
14. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the
learned Single Judge has framed the two issues that “whether the
subject proceedings have lapsed? Whether the petitioner herein is
entitled for any damages as claimed” for consideration.
15. So far as the issue No. 1 is concerned, the learned Single Judge
has observed that “Section 11-A of the Act mandates passing of award
within two years from the date of Section 6 declaration. In the instant
case, Section 6 declaration was issued on 17.10.2014 afresh pursuant
to the orders of this Court in WP No. 12429 of 2007, dated 02.01.2014.
Thereafter, on 05.02.2015, the 4th respondent passed the impugned
Award. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the proceedings in the
instant case are not vitiated.”
16. Insofar as the issue No. 2 is concerned, the learned Single Judge
has observed that “Since this Court does not find any procedural
infirmity and illegality in the iimpugned action, the petitioner herein is
not entitled for any relief under this head under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
17. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the
submissions made in the counter affidavit that only the compound wall
and open space are getting affected, but not the heritage structure and
the distance between the compound wall and the heritage structure is
75 feet and that the compensation is determined as per Section 24
read with Section 27 of Act 30 of 2013 and in view of the rival claims
the amount is deposited in the civil Court. After taking into
consideration the all above rival submissions, the learned Single Judge
has held that “The other contention as regards the quantum of
compensation fixed by the respondents, in the considered opinion of
this Court, can be agitated by the petitioner herein in an appropriate
forum available under Act 30 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation
i.e., for re-determination of the quantum of compensation and the
petitioner is given two months time from the date of receipt of this
order to avail the said remedy before the appropriate authority.”
Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition
on 11.07.2017 with the above observations.
18. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order in W.P. No.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Sunday, November 26, 2023
Printed For: Mr. Hon?ble Justice K. Sarath
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35113 of 2015 has opined that as regards the contention of

compensation fixed by the respondents, the appellant/petitioner can
agitate in an appropriate forum available under the Act Section 30 of
2013 for enhancement of compensation i.e. re-determination of the
quantum of compensation and the appellant/petitioner was given two
months time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to avail
the said remedy before the appropriate authority.
CONCLUSION:
19. Since the appellant/petitioner in terms of the order passed in
W.P. No. 35113 of 2015 has already availed the remedy before the
appellate authority in LAOP. No. 37 of 2019 filed under Section 64 of
the Act, 2013 pending before the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority and that the appellant/petitioner prayed to
direct the authority to dispose of the case in a time bound period and
considering the age of the appellant/petitioner, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority to expedite the appellant/petitioner's case in
LAOP. No. 37 of 2019 as early as possible. The respondent authorities
are directed to communicate the order of this Court to the Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) within a
period of (1) one week from the date of this order and thereafter the
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) is
directed to dispose of the appellant/petitioner's case in LAOP. No. 37 of
2019 within a period of four months thereafter.
20. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.