'1 . Banda Jangaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI Y.RAMA RAO, (SC FOR HMDA) The Court made the following: ORDER I I i l THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.29185 of 20L3 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer : " to issue any appropriate Llrit, order or. direction, preferahly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus decloring the Memo bearing No.C/38/2013 dared 03-09-2013 issued by the 3'd resporulent as illeg,al, arbitrary and violalive of Articles 11 and 300-A of lhe Constitution of India by setting aside the same and pending disposal of the above Writ Petilion, direct the 3'd respondent to forward the application under Section l8(1) of the Land Acquisition Acl, submitted by the petilioners for relerence to the Courl for cnhancenrcnt of lhe Award amounL as per markel value, in respect ofpetitioners' agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.l8% gts in Survey No.l45 of Mylardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District covered by Award No.C/68/2007 dated 10-01-2008: and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit anrl proper in the circumstances of lhe case. "

2. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and learned Govemment Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.

3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners are the owners of agricultural 't 2 land admeasuring Ac.8.00 situated in Sy.Nos.137, 11_:,, 143,146, 134, 138, 144, 145 and l45ll of Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District: that the respondents had issued notification under Sc"tio. r(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short 'the Act' ) seeking to acquire land to an extent of Ac.0.23 gts; that a rlazette was published to the above effect vide Gazette 6u1"6 2g-it',t -2007 and that the afbresaid acquisition was meant for dcveloprnent of p-7 road from Mailardevpally to Srisailam road via Jalprlli.

4. lt is the further case of the petitioners that though, the respondent authorities by the notification issued unrler Section 4( 1) of the Act gazetted on 28-07 -2007 proposc<l to a,: quire land to an extcnt of Ac.0.23 gts, were in fact acquirin,l land to an extent of Ac.1.08 gts of petitioners' land, the oetitioners approached this Court by filing a Writ potr,.ion vide W.P.No.2699l2008; and that this Court by ortler dated 24-04-2008 in a Miscellaneous Petition filed in thc, aforesaid Writ Petition, directed the respondent authorities to dcvelop the road from Mailardevpally to Srisailam Road via Jalpralli 6111, ,o the extent of tand notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act oo 28-07-2007.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that though, the respondent authorities by the aforesaid notification issued, had claimed of land ro an extcnt of Ac.0.23 gts is only bqing acquired for the purpose ofroad, in fact have laid the'road in petitioners' land to an extcnt of Ac.t.08 gts and having found that they have committed a mistakc, have issued yet another notification published in the Gazette on 02-03-2012 and therealler issued notification dated 10-12-2012 whercby, the rcspondent authorities expressed their intention to acquire further land to an extent of Ac.O.281/z gls betonging to the petitioners'

6. It is thc lurther case of petitioners that ifthe land rvhich was proposcd to be acquircd under the notification dated 28-07-2001 and the land proposed to be acquired under the second notification datc<l 10- 1 2-201 2 are put together, the same would total to the extcnt of land being claimed by the petitioners of being used for taying road without initialty acquiring the same' t 4

7. It is the furthcr case of the petitioners that rloueh. the respondent authoritics on issuing notice under Seclior 4(1) ofthc Act datcd 28-07 -2007 have passed an award on 10-0 l-2008, and insofar as the second land acquisition of Ac.(l.lii% gts ls concemed, an award was passe d on 03-07-2013. tl.c amounts under thc award dated l0-01-2008 antl 03-t)l-.t013 were disbursed tr the petitioners on thc samc day; that rhc pctirioners rcceivcd thc said amounts under protest, and cal eil upon thc respondents to make a reference undcr Scction lti( I of thc Act to the Court

8. It is the furthcr case o1'the petitioners that thc rcspondent authoritics instead o1' relerring the application Iiled by the petitioners under Scction 18 ol the Act in respcc. of both the awards, have made reference only in respect of sotond award dated 03-07-2013 and insofar as firsr award dated I0,01-2008 is concerned, have rejected the same by issuing thc impugned Memo dated 03-09-2013 stating that the appli.:irrion under Section 18 of the Act filed by the petitioners hcrc in on 14-08- 2013 is barred by limitation under Secrion lti( t)b of rhe Limitation ,\ct (t

9. It is the further contention of the petitioners that since, the 5 amounts under the awards dated 10-01-2008 and 03-07-2013 were disbursed together only after passing of the second award, the impugned proceeding titled as 'Memo' dated 03-09-2013 rejecting the application made by the petitioners to make a reference in terms of Section lE of the Act in so far as award dated 10-01-2008, is illegal, arbitrary and violative ofArticles 14 and 300-4 of thc Constitution of lndia, with a consequential direction to set aside the impugned Memo dated 03-09-201 3

10. Per contra, leamed Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that the respondent authorities on initiating proceedings, acquired land to an extent of Ac.0.23 gts have passed an award vide proceedings dated 10-01-2008 and that on passing the award, the authorities have issued notice under Section l2(2) of the Act on the same day and served the same on the petitloners. I 1 . Leamed Government Pleader further submits that on the respondent authorities passing the award, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2699 6 ol 2008 clairning that though, in thc notification. it is nentioned as Ac.0.23 gts is being acquired for laying ofroad, Lhc land to an extent of Ac.,I.08 gts is getting affected, upon whit h this Court had directcd the respondent authorities to develop [' 7 road liom Mailardevpally to Srisailanr road via Jalpalli onlv in thc land notified in the Notification issued under Section 4( I ) of the Act dated 28-07-2007. and thus. thc respondent autl,or itics have conflned the development of'road only to the said e\ tcnt covercd by the notilication.

12. Leamed Govemment Pleader further submits that though, the petitioncrs have been served with notice ol passir I ol award dated 10-01-2008 by issuing intimation under Seclion 12(2) of the Ac! thc petitioners did not choose to file anl lpplication under Section 18 of the Act seeking a referencc lo Court for enhancement of compensation.

13. Learned Govemment Pleader further submits thirt thereafter the respondent authorities issued another notification .,vhercunder the respondent authorities have acquired land to ar extent of Ac.0.28% gts and passed an award dated 03-07-201-: e, 7

14. Learned Govemment Pleader further submits that though, the authorities have passed first award in respect ol Ac.0.23 gts on l0-01-200E, the petitioners did not come forward to receive the compensation and on the other hand, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2699 of 2008 and obtained interim order therein, and the writ petition was finally disposed of only on 2l- 06-2024. I 5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that on the respondent authorities passing thc second award in respect ol Ac.0.28% gts ol land, the pctitioners havc filed an application under Section l8(2) of the Act on l4-08-2013 seeking reference to Court for determination of proper compensation, both in respect of award dated l0-01-2008 and the second award dated 03-07 -2013.

16. Leamed Government Pleader further submits that insofar as the award in respect of Ac.0.23 gts of land is concerned, the said award having been passed on 10-01-2008 and the petitioners having been issued with intimation in terms of Section l2(2) of the Act on the same said date, the petitioners are required to file 8 application seeking reference to Court within a pcriod o1'rwo months lrom the date of award/service of notice trnrler Scction l2(2) of thc Act from the Collector, and since, thc notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was servcd on the petition:r,; on l0-01- 2008, the application filed by the petitioners under Sr:ction Ig of thc Act on l4-08-2013 is clearly beyond the pcr.iocl prescribcd under the Aot, anC thus, the respondent authorities lta<i rejected the same.

17. Insofar as the application filed sceking refererrct: in respect of Award dated 03-04-2013 in respect of land to arn exrent o1- Ac.0.28% gts is concemed, lcarncd Govemment plt:a,ler submits that since. the said application filed on l4-0g-201 j lrc Lng in rime, the authorilies have made reference of the said applicttion to the Court

18. Leamcd Govemment Pleader thus, contends thirt insot-ar as award datcd l0-01-2008 since, the petitioners did not file application under Section 18 of the Act within the time prescribed under the Act, the said apptication was r,-- jectcd. and 9 as such, the impugned proceeding does not call for any interference.

19. Leamed Government Pleader would also contend that the claim of the petitioners of they having received the cornpensation, both in respect of award dated 10-01-2008 and 03-07 -2013 only after passing of second award, and thus being entitled to file application under Section l8 ol the Act from the date of receipt of compensation, is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, and thus, secks for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

20. I have taken note of respcctive contentions urged

21. The short question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whethcr the dpplication filcd undcr Section l8 of the Act seeking refercnce to Court being aggrieved by the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested is to be made, should be considered from the date of passing of the award or the receipt of compensation thereunder. /, I I 10

22. In order to adjudicate the aforesaid issue, it is rrecessary to reef-er to reJevant provisions of thc Act.

23. Section I i ol Act deals with passing of nrr rrrd b). thc Collector. Section l2 of the Act specifies that the arvard of the Collector r.r,ould be final. Sub-Section (2) of Scct ion 12 of the Act specifies that the Collector on passing ol the .Lward shall givc immediate notice of his award to such pemons irrterested as arc not present personally or by their rcprcsentati.. (.i uhcn thc au,ard is made.

24. Section l6 of the Act confers powers to take rossession o{' the Iand on passing of award under Section I I ,f thc Act. Section 18 of the Aot deals with rights ol person irrrr-,1g5tgd who has not acccpted the award by making applicar ion to thc Collcctor. to refer the matter to the Court for detcr.nr ination. be it in relation to measurement or amount of compe ns,rtion payable or the persons to whom it is payable or apportionnrr:nt thcreof. Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) to Section 18 of the A ct spccihes that if the person filing the application is prcsr..nt or was represented before the Collector at the time when thi, au,ard was 77 made, the limitation for filing application is six weeks from the date o[ Collector's order. Further Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act as applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh further provides that in other cases i.e. if the person is not present by himself or tkough representative, such applications are to be filed within hvo months fiom the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section l2(2) of the Act.

25. though, in the facts of the present case, since. it is not stated that the petitioncrs eithcr in person or through representative, were present when the Collector passed award on 10-01-2008, the Collector had issued notice of passing of award under Section l2(2) of the Act on 10-01-2008, which was duly served on petitioners.

26. The petitioners, on being issued with notice of passing of award and being aggrieved by the said award, have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition vlde W.P.No.2699 of 2008 claiming that it is not only the land to an extent of Ac.0.23 gts as mentioned in the notification is being acquired, but in fact, their I 72 I land to an extent of Ac.l.08 gts is under acquisilion. On the petitioners approaching this Court by filing Wrjr l,ctirion, an interim order was passed on 24-04-2OOg u,lrereby the rcspondents were directed to develop p7 road onlr t,, thc extent of land notified in the notilication issued under Sc.ction a(1) of the Act. 'fhus, the petitioners not only have k n,rwledge of passing ol the order. but also objected to thc mcasuretnent of land by filing the said Writ Petition. If only the l),:rtrtioncrs had any objection to the respondents acquiring more lun,-i than u,hat rvas notifled in the notihcation issued under Sectit n 4(1) of the Act, even in respect ofsuch dispute, the petitioners .Irght to have availed the remedy of seeking reference under St-rlion ltj(1) of the Act bcing in relation to measurement. I lo wcvcr. lhe petitioners did not choose to do so and instead, appr.tached this Court and obtained an order restraining tht. rcspondent authorities liom developing the road beyond the larrd covercd by the notification issued under Section a(l) of ttrc Act dated 28-07-2007. Thus. it is not open for the petitionor\ no\^, to tum around and claim that during pendency of the said tr'rit petition, the respondent authorities have issued another notification for 13 acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.0.28% gts, for which an award has been passed on 03-07-2013, and as such they are entitled to file application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to Court from the date of receipt of compensation

27. Further, it is also to be noted that though, the petitioners being aggrieved by the award dated l0-01-2008 have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition vlde W.P.No.2699 of 2008, nothing prevented the petitioners either to receive compensation amount awarded thereunder under protest and fiting application under Section l8 of the Act, seeking reference in rcspect of the amount awarded as compensation thereunder notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were claiming that the land in excess of notification having been used for the purpose of developing the road

28. If the contention of the petitioners that on account of pendency of the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2699 of 2008 they did not file application under Section 18 of the Act in respect of award dated 10-01-2008 is to be accepted as correct, the said Writ petition was pending even on the date when the petitioners t--t:, r 74 have filed application under Section I 8 of the Act on I 4-0{l-20 I 3 and it is onlv a decade thereafter the said Writ Petiti,.rn came to be disposod ol by this Court on 2l -06-2024 .

29. Since. the Act stipulates time frame withjn which an applicaLion under Section l8 of the Act is to bc lrled seeking relerence to Court, the said time period cannot be e:rrl:rrged either bl the authorities or by the Court. Equally, it is:ictlled position ollarv that Scction 5 of the I-imitation Act, 1963 rroLrld havc no application rvhile approaching the Court under the .r',cr.

30. lt is also equally settled that even in ir .ase where compcnsation is accepted under protest, and not lraving filed application under Section I8 of the Act, limitation ..r,ould not get saved lbr (he persons intercsted to approach the :r.rthorities and submit application beyond the period prescribed unde ,- the Act.

31. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. S'atinder Bir Singht had categorically stated that the timitation b,.:gins ro run frorn the date of receipt of the notice and by operation of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section lli sincc, the '(1995) 3 scr tro 15 application was not made within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice, the application was barred by limitation. In the aforesaid case, the compensation amount was received under protest, even then the Apex Court held that reccipt of compensation to be different from filing of application under Section l8 of the Act seeking reference to Court either in relation to measurements, amount of compensation, persons to whom payable or apportionment of compensation among the persons interested.

32. Though, on behalf of the petitioners, rcliance has becn placed on thc decisions \n Bhagwan DAs & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Ahers', Madan and another Vs. Sate of Maharashtrd, Manharlal Shivlat Panchal & Others Vs- The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition OfJicer & Othersa and Shri Nashik Panchavati Paniarpol Trust & Olhers Vs. The Chairman & Anothers, none of the aforesaid decisions deal with the issue ' (2olo) 3 scc 545 r lzor+; z scc zzo o zozl(r ) t.lLJ tse 5 zo23 INSC 750 \ 16 f- involved in thc prcsent case so as to advance tht: petltloners r;ase of the

33. As noted hercin above, since, in the facts rr. the present case, the pctitioners bcing served with notice ofpassirrg ol.award datecl l0-0 I-200g under Section l2(2) of rhe Atr and being served on th., samc day, the application filed on I ,1_r)g_2013 is clearly beyond Iimitation prescribed undcr Section I8(2) of the Act (as applicable in the State olAndhra Pradesh 3r Lhe relcvant point of timc). and 1br the said reason, the impu_encrl or.der ol.the 3"r respondcnt cannot bc said either as illegal or ur.hitrary and violative ol'Article l4 and 300_A of Constitution ol.Jrrdia apart from contrart, to law. 34 Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the pr,..scnt Writ Petition as tr ted is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. ru:cordingly

35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending iJ- ,rny shall stand clohd.* //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER To, The Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition ). S;ecretariat Buildings, State of Andhra piadesh, HVOeriUaO-.- The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi_ka_pcol Hyderabad - - - Z ;iffilctHffiffitB'ffi!

3. The Land Acquisition Of Special Deputy Collector (LA), l.A.P, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. I

4. The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

5. The Secretary, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Office at Greenlands Guest House, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 6. One CC to SRI J.ASHOK KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI Y.RAMA RAO(SC FOR HMDA). IOPUCI Two CD Copies BSK LS I I I, HIGH COURT \ DATED:1110712025 \ I -: : -..2--'-: l7'r'1'-: ; //../-^ ,''-' :'t' .Sa .:t t t; il, * ''..\ \i i ,*' -:l ORDER WP.No.29185 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ----"':' t\'t- 1