High Court · 2025

Cognsel fol the Petitioner: SRI QAZI SYED MAZHERUDDIN (NoT PBESENI) Counsef for the Respondents: GP FOR LANQ ACqUISITION The Court mafle the following: ORQEB "rt' - THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.6330 of 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer 'This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents declaring the act of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice for not referring the matter to the civil court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the proper adjudication for enhancement oF the compensation in the land acquisition proceedings regarding the Sy.No.645 to the extent of Ac.l7-23 gts Situated at Village Bhainsa, lYandal Bhainsa, District Adilabad, which is being acquired for the public purpose to wit for due submergence in SUDDAVAGU PROIECT BHAINSA (RIGHT F[ANK), as per notification in the district Gazette No.1/2001 dated 08-01-2001 Proc.No.l and direct the respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court, Nirmal, for the proper adjudication pertaining to the enhancement of the compensation according to the market value and also pass such other order of orders as the Honble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

2. None appears for the petitioner' Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 3 and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell as set out in the affidavit filed in suppot of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner's husband was owner and possessor of agricultural land in sy.No.645 situated at Bhainsa Village, ! I 2 Nirmar ivranda ' Adirabad District (now Nirmar District); that orrt of the rand belonging to the petitioner,s husband, land to an extent ,lf Acs.12.23 guntas was ,rr:quired by the respondents for sub_mergence due to Suddavagu project Bhainsa (Right FIank) by issuing lanr: acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisitjon Act, 1894 (tor short, 'the A,,); un. that the respondents_a uthorities purslant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act have passed award dt.07.03.2002ln respect of the petitioner,s husband,s land and other iands getting affectec by the sub_mergence.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the respondents passing the awr-d acquiring the rand and determining the cornpensation payable thereurrcler, insofar as the land of the petitioner,s husband to an extent of Acs.1.1.23 guntas in Sy.No.645 of Bhainsa Village is concerned, as there were .ival claims, the District collector had made rr reference under section 3l of the Act to the Couft for resolving the dispute as to apportionment cF compensation of the land and the compensation; that on the District collector making reference to the court under Ser tion 30 of the Act, the refer,:nce was taken on record by the Court, vtde O.p.No.74 of 2003 on the f le of the Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal; that the kial Court by its order dt'11.02.2013 had herd that the petitioner herein being the legal representative of craimant No.5 in the award proceerling is r:ntired to t 3 receive compensation to the extent of Acs.12.23 guntas out of the acquired land in SY.N0.645.

5. It is the further case of the petitloner that on the competent Coutt adjudicating the dispute as to the apportionment on a reference under Section 30 of the Act, by its order dt.11.02.2013, the petitioner not agreeing to the compensation determined under the award, had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted an application on

15.03.2013, seeking reference to Cou( under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.

6. Petitioner fufther contends that only upon the competent Court adjudicating the dispute as to apportionment on a reference made by the Dlstrict Collector under Section 30 of the Act, holding the claimant No'5 being entitled to receive compensation and the petitioner having come on record as legal heir of claimant No.5 in the O.P.No.74 of 2003, would be entitled to make application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired to an extent of Acs.l2.23 guntas; that in spite of petitioner submitting application on 15.03.2013 after adjudication of reference under section 30 of the Act, within the time prescribed under the Act, the same is not referred to the.civil court till date. Thus, the petitioner contends that the inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in making reference to { l t I I 4 the Civil Court under Section 1B of the Act is illegal, artlitrary ,rnd contrary to the provision:; of the Act. 7; Per co,lfra, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent No;. 1 to 3 would submit that on the respondent,;_authorities passing award, the claimant if is not agreeable to the amount of compensation i; required to submit an application to the Distrirl Collector, seeking reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act e,ither within six weeks fron the date of Collector,s award if he was present or represented beiore the coflector or two months from the dat(] of service of the notice frcnr the Collector under Section I2(2) of the Act. B. Learned 3overnment pleader thus contends that as tht.: petitioner did not submit,rpplication though had claimed her husband prrrsuing the matter for enhancement of compensation, since, no ap;:,lication is submitted seekir,l to refer the matter to court under section 18 of the Act, the applicaton submitted by the petitioner herein on ;.5.03.2013 cannot be considr:red as having been fired in time or the autho -ity having failed to make r':ference to court for determination of the corlpensation payable.

9. Learned (;overnment pleader would further submit that nothing prevented the petitioner's husband to fire an apprication seeking reference to Couft under Section 18 of the Act on passing of Award, even if there 5 existed inter se disputes with regard to the subject land requiring the District collector to make reference to court for resolving the dispute as to apportionment. Thus, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner that the application filed by her on adjudication of the dispute of apportionment on reference made under Section 30 of the Act cannot be considered as within time for the respondents-authorities to refer the same to Court under Section 1B of the Act.

10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged' 11" Firstly, it is to be noted that seeking reference to Court by submitting an application under Section 18 of the Act is a right, which is conferred on a claimant in four types of cases namely, (a) objection as to measurement of the land (b) amount of compensation payable (c) to whom it is payable and (d) apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. On the other hand, Section 30 of the Act is a duty whereby the Collector is required to make reference to Court only if (i) any dispute relating to apportionment of the compensation either in full or in part thereon (2) as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable either in full or in part thereof, as the said authority is not conferred with powers to adjudicate inter se disputes. Thus, requirement to refer the dispute in *he- aforesaid two situations is a duty that is cast on the authority. Thus, sections 18 and 30 of the Act operate in tvvo different spheres and are not interconnected. The said principle has also been { j 6 stated by the ron'ble supreme court in the decision ia sharda Devi vs. State of Bihal.

12. In the facts of the present case, though an a\r'/ard w;,rs passed in respect of the and acquired from the petitioner's husband to rn extent of Acs.r2.23 gunr:as under award proceedings dt.08.01.2001, the Diskict Collector on n llicing the existence of dispute as to wheth er it is the petitioner's h.rsband who is entifled to receive compensation ,lr the other claimants, who had put up the rrval claim to the aforesard exl_ent of land had referred the matter to Court for resolving the dispute Upon the District collector making reference to couft under section 30 of the Act, the said referen:e was numbered as O.p.No.74 of 2003.

13. The Court thereafter had decided the dispute as to apportionment of the land and held that the rival claim to the subject land pu1 up by the others cannot hre accepted. It is only when the competent Court had passed an order adjudicating the rival claims, the rights of the parties can be said to hav< been crystallized. Thus, it is only on 11.02 2013, the petitioner herein being the legal representative of the Srh resrondent _ claimant in the award is declared as entiued to receive the con.rpensation ' lzoo:; : scc tza 7 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.12.23 guntas belonging to her husband having acquired and not at any time before.

14. This Court considering a similar fact situation in W'P'No'27676 of 2024, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan and another v,/s. State of Maharashtrl wherein it was observed at para as under: '11. A cursory glance at the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of compensation to the Court' But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two sections of the Act operate in entlrely different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the collector is to make a reference of the question of apPortlonment to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a ctaimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is assed either by the Coud in the reference under Section 30 of in the civil suit. as maYbe.' ' lzot+1 z scc -t20 I t ). vide order dt.1LII.2O24, held that the entitlement to receive compensation rvould crystallize only when the couft to which a reference is made under Section 30 of the Act determining the petitioner,s entitlement.

15. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner,s entiUement to receive compensation has been crystallized only on 11.02 2013 when judgment and oecree is passed in O.p.No.74 of 2003. It is only thereafter, the petitioner crurd have submitted an apprication to the Distri:t coilector seeking referenr:e to Couft under section 18 of the Act with reqard to the compensaticin d{tr:ermined under the award.

16. The petir,ioner having submitted an applicatjon on 15.03.2013 seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act, the said application beinrl within two months from the date of the notic{,) reckoned with the date of the order of the Court, this Court is of the view that the said application rubmitted by the petitioner is to be considered as having been filed in ilnre for the authorities to refer the same to c.ut under Section 18 of the Act.

77. Accordingty, the Writ petition is disposed of dire:ting the respondents-autt'orities to refer the apprication submitted by the petitioner on 15.03.2013 to the competent coult in terms of section 18 read with .:.i.- I I 9 2(d) of the Act within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. lB.Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthiswritpetitionshall stand closed. - ASSIS s. SD/-V. KAVITHA NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To, l The Principal Secretary to the Government of Telangana' Revenue Departmen[, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Adilabad 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Nirmal' District Adilabad' 4. ONE CC tCJ SRI QAZI SYED MAZHERUDDIN' AdVOCAtC IOPUC] 5 rwo ccs to GP FOR I-AND ACQUlSlTloN, High Qourt fQr the state of - iJtangana at HYderabad [OUT] 6 Tyvo CD CoPies '*t '' BSR BS I HIGH COURT DAT.ED: 1910212025 l i {-. i. oRDER WP.No.6330 of 2014 --;r===::-- 'i '1E Ii 'n iE' c ,1 a. d\ 0 7 APit :[:i * i\r,.arcr.rl \.---:- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a -4 / t/ I 1 dY' ,':