Kolan Nikitha Reddy, Wo. Boppidi Vinod Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the land acquisition award Vide notice No. No. 1OlNlMZ2021 , dated 13.04.2023 lJls,23 to 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 treating the petitioner's land as agriculture instead of non-agriculture as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to their own proceedings in NALA order No. 2100607675, dated 15.07.202'1 offending the petitioner rights under Article '14' 19,21 and Article 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the same by duly awarding the proper compensation in terms of non- agriculture land in terms of Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of petitioners land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.34 guntas situated in Survey No. 109/El situated in Bardipur Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District in so far as petitioner's land is concerned, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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. not to proceed with any activity without considering Petitioner representation, dated 05.08.2023 in respect of petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.34 guntas situated in Survey No. 109i El situated in Bardipur Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District in .so far as petitioner's land is concerned, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in respect of petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.34 guntas situated in Survey No. 109/E1 situated in Bardipur Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District in so far as petitioner's land is concerned, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT PETITION NO: 27987 OF 2024 Between: Kolan Badra Reddy, W/o. K.YadiReddy Aged 63 years, Occ. Business Rl/o.H.No. 1-2-33NP128 to 29, Vertex Privilege Prashant Nagar, Nizampet, Kukatpally Medchal Malakjgiri District500072. ...PETtTIONER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue and land Acquisition Department Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Sangareddy District. 3. The Land Acquisition officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Sangareddy District.

4. The Tahsildar, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated h the affidavlt filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the land acquisition award Vide notice No. 10lNlMZ2O21 , dated 13.04.2023 Uls, 23 to 30 of the.RFCTLARR Act, 2013 treating the petltioner's land as agriculture instead of non-agriculture as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to their own proceedings in NALA order No. 2100606874, daled 15.07.2021 offending the petitioner rights under Article '14, 19,21 and Article 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the same by duly awarding the proper compensation in terms of non-agriculture land in terms of Section 26 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.30 guntas situated in Survey No. 105/A2l1 and an extent of Ac. 0.04 guntas in Survey No. 112lAN1 and also an extent of Ac. 0.001/2 in Survey No. 149lA, total an extent of Ac. 0.34112 guntas in so far as petitioner's lands are concerned, in the interest of justice. !A NO: 1 OF 2024 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 not to proceed with any activity without considering petitioner representation, dated 05.08.2023 in respect of petitioner land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.30 guntas situated in Survey No. 105/A2l1 and an extent of Ac. 0.04 guntas in Survey No. 112lAN1 and also an extent of Ac. O.00112 in Survey No. 149/A, total an extent of Ac.0.341112 guntas in so far as petitioner's lands are concerned, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in respect of petitioner's land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.34 guntas situated in Survey No. 109/E1 situated in Bardipur Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District in so far as petitioner's land is concerned, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petition'ers: SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER l.' E THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W N 92 a d2 7 t2 4 coMM ON ORD ER: Since the issue involved in these Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2 ' These writ petitions are fired seeking to decrare the action of the respondents in issuing notices dt.13.04.2023, under Sections 23 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetflement Act, 2013 (for short, ,the Act,), informing the petitioners to colrect the amount of compensation as determined under Awards dt.29.02.2023, treating their land as agricultural land, instead of non-agricultural land, as being illegal, unconstitutional, contrary to the NALA conversion issued respondents, vide woceedings dt.15.07.202L and contrary to the provisions of the Act 2013, and also in violation of Artictes 14, tg, 2l and 3004 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel For the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing For the respondents in both the Writ Petitions and perused the record. 4. Shorn of unnecessary detairs, the case of the petitioners in brief is that they are the absolute owners, possessors and pattadars of various by the arbitrary, 2 extents of agricultural land in different survey numbers of Bardipur Village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy Districu that the petitioners, on purLhase of the aforesaid land, had obtained conversion of the said land from agriculture to non-agriculture in the year 2021; and that the respondents-authorities while acquiring the aforesaid land of the petitioners for the purpose of developing National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (NIMZ) have determined the compensation payable in respect of the aforesaid lands on acreage basis by treating the sam6 as agricultural land, instead of treating the said land as non-agricultural land and not applying square yard rate, which action it is contended is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

5. Petitioners further contend that though the petitloners had raised objection before the respondents-authorities for determining the market value on acreage basis, instead of square yard basis, the respondents- authorities did not consider the same and as such, the award proceedings of the respondents-authorities are vitiated.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents would submit that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the determination of compensation, be it on acreage basis or square yard basis, the petitioners had right to seek a refetence under Section 64 of the Act, which the petitioners did not choose to avail'

7. on beharf of the respondents, it is arso contended that the petitioners, on the respondents-authorities passing the award determining the compensation payabre, had accepted the compensation, without any demour or protest or making applicauons in terms of section 64 of the Act, have filed the present Writ petitions, after a lapse of one year six months after passing of the award, and as such, cannot now seek for reference under Section 64 of the Act to the authority or to determine the compensation by this Court. B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Section 64 of the Act provides for seeking reference to the authority constituted under the Act, in the event of the awardee being aggrieved by the award passed in relation to measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or apportionment of compensation among the persons interested.

10. since, the petitioners in the present cases craim that the compensation amount determined by the respondents_authorities being improper, the case of the petitioners would squarely fall under the scope of the aforesaid provision. Thus, the petitioners ought to have made an application seeking reference to the authority under the Act. Admittedly, the petifirners have failed to do so, within the time provided under sub_ section(2) of section 64 0F the Act. Further, the petitioners arso did not I I 4 f avail the benefit of extension of time as provided under the proviso to sub_section (2) of section 64 of the Act by approaching the collector, within the further time provided thereunder' 11. Thus, the Petitioners were not diligent in pursulng the remedies ava,abre to them against the award passed by the respondents-authorities and only after a lapse of one and half year from the date of passing of the award, have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition assailing the action of the respondents-authorities as wrongly determining the comPensation PaYable'

72. Further, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present Writ Petitions does not disclose any reason for the petitioners not being able to avail the remedy provided under Section 64 of the Act at the relevant point of time and also in approaching this Coutt after a lapse of one and half year' It is settled position of law that interested person must be vigilant and the Court cannot come to the rescue of a person who is not diligent in pursuing the remedies available to him in law (see M/S' Mutha Associates & Orc v/s' State Of Maharashtrl)' ' (zor:) ta scc :oq 5 ,.

13. It is also equally settled position of law that delay defeats equity and since, the petitioners being interested persons have allowed the grass to grow under their feet by remaining silent for a period of one and half year from the date of passing of award, cannot now be permitted to assail the action of the respondents-authorities in passing the award by filing the present Writ Petitions.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition as filed claiming that the compensation as determined by the authorities to be either wrongly or improperly determined without taking into consideration the acquired land having been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture and thus, the determination of compensation on the basis of acreage to be contrary to the scheme of the Act, cannot be allowed to be raised at this point of time having accepted the compensation without any protect or demur.

15. Since, the present Writ Petitions suffer from delay and latches, this Couft is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any relief.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event of the award passed by the respondents-authorities is not confining only to the petitioners lands, but includes other lands and if such land holders had availed the remedy provided under Section 64 of 6 the Act resulting in enhancement of compensation, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents-a uthorities and avail remedies in terms of Section 73 of the Act within the time prescribed thereunder. No order as to costs.

17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed /ITRUE COPY// SD/. V.KAVITHA TANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER / To, TJ

1. One CC to Sri Botta Praveen Kumar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition' High Court for the State of Telangana' - at HYderabad [OUfl 3. Two CD CoPies W BSR ' HIGH COURT DATED:05112t2024 COMMON ORDER I Y e \ /.: SIA/ 4c + 0 3 r;r$ Z[25 . a(\ / S,.AT r-: WRIT PETITION NO: 21921 and 2t9|t OF ZO24 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS o4iet G &r"