Akbar Khan v. Acqusition) Secretariat, Hyderabad

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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned notice in order Ref. No.8211123120'1 '1 dated 20.06.2012 refusing to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 18 of the LA. Act in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2.29 guntas situated in Survey No. 293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad District pursuant to the order in O.P.No. 1046 of 2007 dated 01.12.2010 by considering the protest application dated 0g.Ol .2011 and 03.06.2011 as illegal arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the L.A. Act. Consequential diiection directing the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 1B of the L.A. Act in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2.29 guntas situated in Survey No.293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad by setting aside the impugned order Ref. No.821112312011 dated 20.06.2012 l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 2107 OF 20141 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cottrt may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 1B of the L.A. Act in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2-29 guntas situated in Survey No.293, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad District pursuant to the order in O.P.No. '1046 of 2007 dated 01 .12.2O1O by suspending the impugned order in Ref. No. 82t112312011 dated 20.06.2012 and pass such other orrler or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. DHANAMJAYA Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ on No.1759 of 2O!4 ORDER: Heard learned counsel For the petitioner,. learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on the respondents- authorities initiating land acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land in Sy.No.293 situated at Sarangapur Village, Nizamabad Mandal, by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), dt.07.01.2005 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 07.01.2005 and 08.01.2005, an award enquiry was held on 31.05.2006 and an award was passed on 17.07.2006 fixing the market value of the land acquired to be Rs.75,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

3. Petitioner further contends that since there was a title dispute between the petitioner and one Mohd.Nurulla Khan S/o late Akbar Khan in respect of land in Sy.No.293 situated at Sarangapur Village, the authority had made reference of the award under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act to the Civil Court; that on reference, the matter was taken up by the Civil Court and numbered as O.P.No.1046 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad; and that an order was passed in the aforesaid O.P. on 01.12.2010. 2

4. Petitioner further contends that by virLue of the order dt.01.12.2010, passed by the Court in O.P.No.:[046 of 2007, the petitioner's title to the land to an extent of Acs.2.29 guntas in Sy.No.293 of Sarangapur Village, Nizamabad Mandal, acqlired under Award, dt.17.07.2001;, stood established and thus, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities and submitted an application dt.09.01.201 1 under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the award to the Court being aggrieved b1' the determination of market value, and in spite of he submitting the aforesaid application within time after passing of the order by the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the said airplication made under Section 18 of the Act has not been referred to the Court, which action, it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that on the respondents-authorities passing award on 17.07.2006, the petitioner did not file any application under Section 18 of the Act though the proceedings are initiated in his name, while the said Mohd.Noorulla Khan had raised objection to the land acquisition proceeding, r,vherein the petitioner was shown as entitled to receive compensation in the land acquisition proceeding raisinq a title dispute.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of the petitioner itself, I I -7 3 it is not open for him to claim and contend of he not being aware of the land acquisition proceeding, more so, having taken part in the proceedings before the Court to which reference has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 30 and 31 oF the Act.

7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner on passing of the order in O.P.No.1046 of 2007 on

01.12.2010 did not submit the application within time for the authorities to consider, though the said application is dt.09.01.2011, the same was submltted on 24.02.20LL, which is beyond the time prescribed under the Act.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. A reading of Section 18 of the Act would show that a person aggrieved by the award passed is required to seek reference by submitting an application to the authority within a period of six weeK, if the person making such application was present or represented before the Collector at the time when award was made or in the event of not being present or represented before the Collector at the time of the award within two months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act.

10. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was fully aware of the land acquisition award passed by the authority and the same is being referred to the Court by the authority under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, , I 4 ( having regarc to the dispute raised by one Mohd.Noorulla and thus, the petitioner cannot claim of not being aware of the aurard passed by the respondents-a uthorities.

11. Further, it is also to be noted that even by acr:epting the claim of the petitioner of he having approached the respondents-authorities on passing ofther order by the Court in O.P.No.1046 of2007 on 01.12.2010, by submittinq representation, dt.09.01.2011, a perusat of the said representatior would show that though the same is dated 09.01.2011, the same has been submitted to the authority on 24.02.2011 and thus, beyond the period prescribed under the Act for the au:horities to consider the said application as having been filed in time.

12. In viev1, of the above, the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner questioning inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in referring the award to the Court by considering the application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act, in the considereC view of this Court is without mer t and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No orjer as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ,TTRUE COPY// "1{ iE'.',SHt l)\: ;;",,.* MURTHY GISTRAR OFFICER To, 1 2 ?5","",:n"]ft ,iE:]*-'"HAIfu -r-..,^ an C.ooles ,tgR'Tltt93y'?rortheStateor HIGH COURT I \ DATED:0610112025 1 1i: S IA 16, 1:' APfl 2[6 v a ( t5 o () 4 t 0E sp,rr C,v\ ORDER WP.No.1759 of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS (+ t 2 h