Telangana High Court
Thokala Sangeetha vs The State Of Telangana on 15 October, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.Nos.22048 and 22050 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents in both the writ petitions, and perused the record.
3. Petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas each in survey No.312C/2 situated at Cheekurai Revenue Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District; that the said land of the petitioners was acquired by the 3rd respondent-authorities for the purpose of laying of new railway B.G.Bypass Line at Peddapalli for connecting Kazipet-Balharsha mainline to Peddapalli-Karimnagar line; that on the 3rd respondent issuing a notice dt.25.04.2023, they have submitted their written objections on 19.06.2023, objecting to the acquisition and also the 2 compensation being determined by the authorities for the aforementioned land of the petitioners; and that though they have objected to the subject acquisition by submitting their written objections on 19.06.2023, the 3rd respondent- authority had passed the Award, dt.17.01.2024, determining the compensation payable in a sum of Rs.4,40,946/- each to the petitioners in respect of their land acquired by the authorities.
4. Petitioners contend that on the 3rd respondent- authority passing the aforesaid award, they not being satisfied with the compensation amount determined, have submitted applications, dt.16.02.2024, seeking reference to the Authority constituted under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act 13 of 2013'); and that the 3rd respondent-authority having received the aforesaid applications made by the petitioners, had rejected the same by issuing the impugned Memos stating that the petitioners/awardees have received compensation duly signing in the acquaintance roll without 3 any prejudice and thus, it is not possible to make reference of the matter to the LARR Authority.
5. Petitioners further contend that in order to seek reference to the Authority under Section 64 of the Act 13 of 2013, there is no requirement of recording any protest while accepting the compensation and the fact of the petitioners submitting applications within the time prescribed under Section 64 itself is an indication of the petitioners not accepting the award passed and thus, the impugned Memos issued by the 3rd respondent-authority is contrary to the provisions of the Act 13 of 2013.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents has placed before this Court written instructions under the signature of the 3rd respondent. By the written instructions it is stated that the 3rd respondent-authority had passed the Award in respect of lands acquired for the purpose of New Railway B.G.Bypass line at Peddapalli for connecting Kazipet- Balharsha main line to Peddapalli-Karimnagar Line to an extent of Acres 8.14 guntas situated in the limits of Cheekurai Village of Peddapalli Mandal vide Award 4 Proceedings, dt.17.01.2024, which includes the petitioners' lands; and that on passing of aforesaid Award, petitioners have received the compensation duly signing in the acquaintance roll 'without under protest'.
7. By the written instructions, it is further stated that since, the petitioners have received the compensation amount without recording their protest, they cannot file applications seeking reference under Section 64 of the Act 13 of 2013, and thus sought for dismissal of both the writ petitions.
8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
9. In order to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act 13 of 2013, it is not necessary for the awardees to record their protest while receiving the compensation, much less there is any prescription under the Act.
10. The mere fact of the awardees receiving compensation, though not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, would not disentitle them from seeking enhancement of the compensation by making an 5 application seeking reference of the matter to the LARR Authority.
11. It is also to be noted that Section 64 of the Act 13 of 2013 is similar to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others 1 has as under:
"Inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the Award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation."
13. Having regard to the position of law as ennunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in refusing to make a reference to the Authority pursuant to the applications submitted by the petitioners with regard to the determination of the compensation under Award, dt.17.01.2024, cannot be held to be valid. 1 (1994) 4 SCC 67 6
14. Further, this Court is of the view that the said authority is not conferred with the power to adjudicate by himself the said applications on being received and is only required to forward the same to the Authority by verifying as to whether the said applications contains the details, which are required to be provided thereunder and the same being filed within the time or not.
15. However, the 3rd respondent-authority instead of forwarding such applications received with regard to the measurement of the land or amount of compensation determined or persons to whom compensation is payable or right of rehabilitation and resettlement or apportionment of the compensation, is seeking to adjudicate himself on such applications being received, which action of the 3rd authority, in the considered view of this Court, is contrary to the provisions of the Act 13 of 2013, and as such the same cannot be sustained.
16. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Memos, dt.05.07.2024, are set aside. The 3rd respondent-authority is directed to make reference of the applications, dt.16.02.2024, submitted by the 7 petitioners with regard to the determination of the amount of compensation payable under the Award, dt.17.01.2024, to the Authority constituted under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 15th October, 2024.
gra