Telangana High Court
State President, Ts Vidhyavanthula ... vs Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyd 4 ... on 12 July, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.76 of 2017
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Azam Khan representing Ms. B.Rachna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.Radhive, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5; and Mr. J.Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed in the form of public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs:
"i) declaring all land acquisition proceedings pursuant to invalid declaration under Section 19(1) vide Collector File No.G2/5364/2015 dated 09.01.2017, including Award of inquiry notice in Rc. No. A/3529/2012 dated 20.02.2017 for the conduct of an award inquiry on 08.03.2017 under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act 30 of 2013), without following any of the required procedure under the LA Act 30 of 2013, prior to acquiring lands for the alleged public purpose of 'Kalyani Khani Opencast Mining' project, specifically in violation of the unambiguous requirement in accordance with Section 41(3) of the LA Act 30 of 2013 that in case of acquisition or alienation of any land in the scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the 2 concerned Grama Sabha or Panchayats or the autonomous District Councils, at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas under the 5th Schedule to the Constitution shall be obtained in all cases of acquisition, including urgency before issuance of any notification under the Act, without following the basic/minimum requirements before issuing the above mentioned declaration, including identification of the resettlement areas and publication of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, deposit of the amount in full or part for the cost of acquisition, after revising or updating the market values in accordance with Rules 5 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998, without conducting Social Impact Assessment (SIA) under Section 4 of Chapter II, without complying with the food security provisions under Section 10(A) of Chapter III, without making any provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapters V to VIII and Schedules II and III, in violation of Sections 3(c)(v), Section 3 r(iii), Chapters II, III, Chapter IV including Section 11, Section 15(2), Section 19, Section 26(3), Section 30(2) read with the 1st Schedule, Chapters V to VIII read with 2nd and 3rd Schedules of Act 30 of 2013, that no project could be undertaken without the prior approval of Grama Sabhas of the villages affected by the proposed project and to safeguard the forest rights of the villagers, under the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as inserted by Regulation 1 of 1970 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (also known as the Forest Rights Act), the 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India, requiring mandatory prior consultation of the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC), as the project having adverse environmental implications would affect all the surrounding villages forming part of the Scheduled Area, by the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, in 3 violation of the above mentioned Acts, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice; ii) and Consequently stay all further proceedings pursuant to the invalid declaration under Section 19(1) vide Collector File No.G2/5364/2015 dated 09.01.2017, including Award of inquiry notice in Rc.No.A/3529/2012 dated 20.02.2017, individually served under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 without completing all the necessary acquisition procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013; iii) further consequently stay all land acquisition proceedings pursuant to Notification issued by the Revenue Department under G.O.Ms.No.123, Revenue (JA and LA) dated 30.07.2015 vide Collector File No.G2/5364/2015 dated 23.06.2016 for acquisition of land by the 2nd respondent of Acres 175.34 guntas, in Kasipet Village and Mandal, Mancherial District (erstwhile Adilabad District) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
3. In sum and substance, the relief sought for is for quashing of award of enquiry notice dated 20.02.2017 issued under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is contended that the land acquisition proceedings is violative of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, 4 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
4. In the proceedings held on 04.04.2017 this Court directed that respondents shall not proceed further without obtaining consent of the Grama Sabha.
5. Thereafter in the proceedings held on 14.06.2022, the following order came to be passed:
"Learned counsel for the State Government has argued before this Court that by an order dated 04.04.2017 this Court has passed an interim order holding that the respondents shall not, without obtaining consent of the Gram Sabha as stipulated under Section 14(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (for short "the 2013 Act"), proceed further pursuant to the Section 19(1) declaration dated 09.01.2017. He has stated that action was initiated strictly in consonance with the provisions of the 2013 Act as directed by this Court. After passing of award, possession of the land has also been taken by the Government and has been handed over to the Requisition Department rendering the writ petition as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter.
List the matter on 12.07.2022."
6. Respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that a meeting of the Grama Sabha was held on 5 17.12.2017 wherein majority of the people had given consent/no objection for acquisition of the land for Kalyani Khani Opencast Project. After the Grama Sabha adopted the resolution preferring acquisition of land for the aforesaid project, land acquisition officer has taken further action in passing consent award, whereafter the requisitioned land has been handed over to respondent No.2. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 are as under:
"8. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, Grama Sabha was conducted on 17.12.2017 at Grama Panchayath Office, Kasipet for the purpose of acquiring lands for Kalyani Khani Opencast Project (KKOCP). The total number of voters in the Grama Shaba are 3,337. During the Grama Sabha 1244 voters have been attended in which 667 voters belongs to S.T. community and conducted as per the AP PESA Rules - 2011. In those Grama Sabha, majority of people had given consent/no objection for acquisition of lands for the Kalyani Khani Opencast Project.
Further, it is also stated as Kasipet Village is in Agency area and majority of the members and land losers belonging to Schedule Tribes expressed their willingness, they have no objections or reservations for acquisition of land, the Grama Sabha passed resolution accordingly. A copy of the resolution passed by the Grama Sabha is filed as a material paper which may read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
9. It is submitted that the Grama Sabha has passed the Resolution in favour of the acquisition of land for KKOCP, and 6 on obtaining the Resolution of the Grama Sabha, the LAO has taken further action in passing the Consent Award and subsequently handed over the requisitioned land to the respondent company."
7. On due consideration, we are of the view that continuing further with this public interest litigation would serve no useful purpose. If any affected person is aggrieved by the award passed, it would be open to such person to avail his remedy in accordance with law.
8. Subject to the observation made above, public interest litigation is disposed of.
9. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 12.07.2022 vs