Telangana High Court
Namsani Lakshmi, vs The State Of Telangana, on 21 February, 2024
1
SK, J
W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since the common issue is involved in both these writ petitions and the petitioners are wife and husband respectively, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.296 of 2019 is filed with the following prayer;
"to issue writ or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring impugned order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.B/150/2018 dated 03.12.2018 in refusing to extend the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in favour of the petitioner though the petitioner's house bearing H.No.3-61/2/B situated at Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapalli District was acquired for the benefit of 5th respondent is illegal void abintio and contrary to the Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in favour of the petitioner forthwith duly setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent".
3. W.P.No.472 of 2019 is filed with the following prayer;
""to issue writ or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring impugned order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.B/151/2018 dated 03.12.2018 in refusing to extend the 2 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in favour of the petitioner though the petitioner's house bearing H.No.3-61/1/A situated at Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapalli District was acquired for the benefit of 5th respondent is illegal, void abintio and contrary to the Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award in favour of the petitioner forthwith duly setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent".
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' houses bearing H.Nos.3-61/2/B and 3-61/1/A situated at Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapalli District were acquired by the respondent No.4 for the benefit of the respondent No.5- Singareni Collories Company Limited for RG Opencast- II-Expansion project of SCCL, Godavarikhani. As the respondents have not included the said houses in the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners and others have filed W.P.No.19732 of 2012 and the same was disposed of on 02.07.2012 directing the respondent No.2 therein to consider the petitioners' representation. After conducting enquiry, their houses were included in the Gazettee Notification dated 24.06.2015 and awards were passed in their 3 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 favour on 30.06.2016 and they have no grievance in respect of the compensation awarded.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the names of the petitioners were not included in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, they made representations dated 24.03.2017 to the respondent No.3 and dated 11.12.2017 to the respondent No.2, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.8453 and 8468 of 2018 and the same were disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. However, the respondent No.3 has issued memos dated 03.12.2018 rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that they are not residing at Akkepally Village and as such, the names of their family members are not included in the Gazette. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioners are residing at Akkepally Village, the respondent No.3 without giving an opportunity to them has issued the 4 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 impugned memos, which are illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petitions.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.676 of 2023 dated 12.07.2023, wherein it was held as under;
"11. Admittedly, the 1st appellant/1st petitioner has been granted a ROFR patta for the land admeasuring Ac.1.54 cents in Vijianagaram H/o Ramanujavaram Village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. It is a matter of record that in the notification issued in Form 6 for acquiring the land, including the land of the 1st appellant/petitioner, the name of the 1st appellant has been shown as holding ROFR patta. Once the 1st appellant is considered as holding ROFR patta and being considered as 'land owner', as defined in Section 3(r)(ii) of the Act 30 of 2013, not only the 'land owner', who would be considered as 'affected family', but also the family members of the said 'land owner' would be eligible for being considered as an 'affected family' under Section 3(c)(ii) of the Act 30 of 2013.
12. If the said provisions are taken into consideration, while the 'land owner' is entitled for compensation under Section 28 and for Solatium under Section 30 and benefits under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme as per Section 31 of the Act 30 of 2013, the family members i.e. appellant Nos.2 to 4, would also be eligible for benefits under Section 31 of the Act 30 of 2013, as they would be covered by the definition of 'affected family'.5
SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019
7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents, based on the counter averments, submits that the petitioners are originally native of Madipalli H/o.Ankampalli Village, Srirampur Mandal, Peddapalli District as per the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2010, wherein the address of vendee i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.472 of 2019, was mentioned as resident of Ankampalli H/o.Madipalli Village of Srirampoor Mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioner in W.P.No.472 of 2019, who was working in Singareni Collories Limited with employee code No.1201926 dated 18.04.1981 in the name of Sri Elpula Rajamallu, s/o. Balaiah, has mentioned his native place in the employee roll formant as Ankampalli Village erstwhile Taluk of Peddapalli of Karimnagar District. While working, he has purchased a house site in Sy.No.68/C to an extent of 139.33 sq. yards through registered document dated 11.06.2010 situated at Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal with 6 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 a malafide intention to receive the land acquisition compensation.
8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that at the time of joint inspection, the house sites of the petitioners were not covered and subsequently as per the Court orders and after conducting enquiry, the respondent No.4 has included their houses in the Draft Declaration and published in Gazette No.05 dated 24.06.2015 and as the survey numbers were wrongly mentioned, another Gazette No.07 dated 22.06.2016 was issued amending the Sy.No.67 instead of 65 and paid compensation of Rs.18,47,301/- and Rs.17,51,827/-respectively to the petitioners.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that as per Rule 3.16 of A.P.Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families Policy, 2005 (R & R policy) vide G.O.Ms.No.68 I & CADD (Project Wing-LA IV-R & R) Dept. dated 08.04.2005, a family for declaring as 7 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 "project affected' should reside in the lands affected by acquisition prior three years from the draft Notification dated 10.09.2013, eligible to get R & R benefits and will be included in SES survey list and under clause 5.1 of A.P. Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2005, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.41 ENERGY (PR.IV) Dept. dated 17.10.2012 declaring the effected villages under project affected zone and in the instant case, the petitioners have purchased the house sites on 11.06.2010 through registered document. The construction permission was issued to their houses in the year, 2011 and as the period as required under the R & R Policy i.e, three years prior to the date of notification, is not fulfilled, the petitioners do not fall under the eligibility category.
10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioners have obtained construction permission of houses in the year 2011, but they have obtained electricity power supply connection on 27.06.2016, which indicates that they are not residing in the 8 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 alleged constructed houses at Akkepalli Village and they have managed with fabricated documents about their residence and obtained the structure and land values under the Land Acquisition Act from the LAO in the year, 2016. He further submits that taking advantage of the petitioner in W.P.No.472 of 2019 being employee in the company of the respondent No.5, they have raised the alleged structure of the houses to grab the compensation in the process of Land Acquisition and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
11. Having heard the submissions of both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute that the houses of petitioners were acquired by the respondent No.4 for the purpose of RG, OC-II Project Expansion. As per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.19732 of 2012 dated 02.07.2012 and after conducting enquiry, the houses of petitioners were included in the Gazettee Notification dated 24.06.2015, awards were passed as 9 SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019 per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act, 2013') and compensation was paid to them. However, the respondents have not granted the Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefit to the petitioners on the ground that they are not eligible for the said benefit as per Rule 3.16 of A.P.Rehabilitation of Project Affected Families Policy, 2005 ( R & R Policy) vide G.O.Ms.No.68 I & CADD (Project Wing-LA IV-R & R) Department dated 08.04.2005. Once the respondents have passed the award as per the Act, 2013, the question of applying the old G.Os does not arise and the petitioners are eligible to get the relief as per Section 31 of the Act, 2013. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners shall apply to the instant case and the petitioners are entitled for the benefit under Section 31 of the Act, 2013 and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside.
10
SK, J W.P.No.296 and 472 of 2019
12. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 03.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as per Section 31 of the Act, 2013 in favour of the petitioners as per the award dated 30.06.2016. No order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:21.02.2024 sj