The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL. No. lO22 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Pcr Ilon ble Sri Justice l'akiti Ranakrishnu Redtll ) I'his Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P. No. 31004 ol

2023. By the said order, the leamed Single Judge disposed ol the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos. i and 2 herein by setting aside the irnpugned proceedings No.E1/1969/2023 dated 13.10.2023 passcd by present Appellant No. 2 while directing the appellant No.2 to initiatc lresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of subject land of thc writ petitioners admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas each and to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlenlent Act, 20 I 3 (tbr short "the Act of 20 I3") within a period of eight rnonths tiorn the date of receipt ofthe order. I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: -it, '

2. The respondent Nos. I and 2 as writ petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.31004 of 2023, challenging the proceedings bearing No. E1/1969/2023 dated 13.10.2023 passed by the 2 I :., .14-ti & r 7?(,r . fi .t t0:2 lDi r Appellant No.2 contt-,nding that the said proceedings were illegal, arbitrary violative of principle s ol natural justice and without adlrr rence to thc duc \ procerlurc prcscriberl lirr acquisition ol land and accordins v sought to havc tlic sarnc sct asidc

3. Admittedll, thc (iovernment had assigned the land to the respectivc fathers ol' thc respondent Nos. I and 2 herein to an ex,ent of Acs.3.00 guntas each in Sun'cy No.32liPP situated at Karakapatla Yillagc, Markook Mandal, Siddipet [)istrict, under [)-form pattas vide File ]Jos. A396176 at SI.No.-54 and SI. No.55 both dared 22.02.1977. Llpon their dcmise, tlic narnes ol the lcspon,Jcnt Nos. I and 2 were mutated in tle revenue records and thcy harc since heen in possession and cultivation of Lhe said land

4. I'hc rcspronclcrrt Nos. I and 2 were constrained to fil,: W.p.No..12726 ol20ll befbre this ( ouft rvhen rhey werc obstructed b1' ttre appellants liour cultii'ating thcir lancls on the ground that subject land qas allotted by the appelltrnt No.4 in Iavour ol' respondent No.3 herein i.e., Sanzynre Biolocical Privatc [.rrnired, lbr establishment of Bio Tecr park, basing on which it had allcgcdly arternpred to interfere with the p,rs;session of their subject land. l-his ('ourt vide order dated,28.04.2023 had directed the Appellant No.2 to conduct enquiry and consider th: claims of the responclent Nos. I and 2 and pay compensation to them irr respect of the ./, {,(1./d rn{1,-/ t1'1 t02) )025 subject property in accordance lr,ith law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order

5. The gricvance of the respondent Nos. I and 2, however, was that notwithstanding such directions, the appellants, had lorcibly taken possession of the subject land and issued the impugned proceedings granting only meagre compensation at the rate of Rs.2,5O,000/- per acre tbr Ac.2.00 guntas each without following the procedure as contemplated either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (lor short "Act, 1894") or under the provisions of the Act of 2013 II. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED STNGLE JUDGE:

6. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, found that except issuing the impugned proceedings, whereby the District Collector, Siddipet District, fixed compensation at the rate of {2,50,000/- per acre for the petitioners' land admeasuring Acs.2.00 each, no rnaterial was placed on record to show that the appellants had initiated acquisition proceedings by following the procedure contemplated either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the fught to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was noted that although the compensation was determined after commencement of the Act, 2013 , no acqursrtion 4 ,ii': l & |'RKR .t r,.1 t022 )02i proceedings w'ere initiated nor any award was passed in respect of the subject lands

7. Consequcntlr. the leamed Single Judge held thrrt the irnpugned proceedings cor-r id .xrl be sustained and accordingly di;p,osed of the Writ Petition by setting asidc thc proccedings No.E1/1969/2023 dated i3.102023, and directing appellant No.2 to initiate lresh acquisition procecdings in respect ofthe petitioners' lands admeasuring Acs.2.00 each and to pay compensation strictly in accordance with th,: provisions of the Act, 2013, rvithir.r a period o1- eight rnonths from the dar.e ol receipt of a copy of the order IIT. PRESENT WRIT API'EAL:

8. Aggrieved bv the said ordel dated. 06.03.2025 in the W.P. No 31004 of2023, the appellants have prefered the present $/rit Appeat

9. lleard the leamed (iovemrrent Pleader for Assignment appearing for the appellants and the leamed counsel fbr the respondent Nos.l and 2 and perused the material available on record IV. POTNT FOR CONSIDERATION:

10. The only point that arises lbr our consideration is: 5 .r.(.\tJ.t i R(n./ u _1 ta:) )D; "Whether lhe order of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the W.P. No. 31004 of 2023 from any illegality, infirmity or peruersit!\ watanting interference by this Court in Appeal/" V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellanls: t i. l'he appellants contended that the Leamed Singte Judge erred in setting aside the proceedings dated 13.10.2023, inasmuch as the same rvere issued by Appellant No.2 strictly in compliance with the directions ol this Court in W.P. No. 42726 ol 2022, after conducting due enquiry into rival claims regarding ex gratia compensation. It was urged that the respondent Nos. I and 2 had not filed any documents proving their possession over the subject lands and had made contradictory pleadings, which was already noticed in W.P. No.42726 of 2022

12. The appellants further contended that the proceedings dated

13.10.2023 recorded that out of Acs. 106.11 guntas of resumed land, ex gratia "r,as paid to all eligible beneficiaries except for Acs.6. l8 guntas due to rival claims. According to the appellants, the possession of the subject land had been with the Government since 2008 and subsequently handed over to APIIC/TSIIC (Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd,) i.e., appellant No.4 herein. It was also urged that the compensation was determined on the basis of prevailing market value after affording an ./ 6 ..r 4..! J d r.n (?../ tl.1 t022 202i opportunity of hcan ng. and that the respondent Nos. I and 2 had applied for pattadar passbooks only in 2022. rnuch after resunrplion in 2008 and allotment to -I SII( rn l() I 6.

13. The appcllants lastl_r, conrended that the leamed Single Judge had committed a manil-est error in directing initiation of fresh land acquisition proceedings without first declaring the resumption to be illcgal, thereby travelled beyond the scope of the relicf'sought in the writ petition and the reliance placed hy, the learned Single J Lrdge on Yor,luith v. State of Telanganat is saicl to bc misplaced rvithout considering ltt,: distinction laid down in LAO r'. Makalo Pandu2. B) Contentions of lhe ResDondents:

14. On thc othe r hand. the lcamed counsel for the resp,rrrdent Nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioners contended rhat thc vcry procedure rrdopted by the Govemment lor lixtrtion ol cornpcnsatit'rn in respect ol thc subject land, was wholly contlrrJ, to the provisions o1'the Act, 2013. Ir was submitted that without initiating acquisition ploceedings under thc Act, 2013, the Govemment had no power or authority to determine compensation and even if the compensation fixed by the Government w,err' to be accepted, '(2021 INSC 664) I (2004 scc online AP 217) 1 ,1Ki',J & f RKR,J ,t'A tD2 )025 such acceptance could not deprive the respondent Nos.l and 2 of their statutory right to claim fair compensation under the Act,2013

15. The respondent Nos. I and 2/writ petitioners further contended that there wcrc no proceedings issued by the Govemment alleging any violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment pattas. In the absence of such violation, the resumption of the land for a public purpose could not justity fixation of compensation below the prevailing market value. Therefore, they subrnit that the impugned action is arbitrary, violative of their rights under Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, and equally amounts to infiingernent of their constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. VI. ANALYSIS AND FTNDINGS:

16. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the respective parties and upon careful examination of the material placed before th is Court, it emerges that the principal contention of the appellants is that the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2023 were issued by the District Collector, Siddipet District, in compliance with the directions issued by this Courl dated 28.04.2023 in W.P. No. 42726 of 2022. It is their further case that the District Collector had conducted an enquiry into rival claims of compensation, atlbrded an opporlunity of hearing to the respondent Nos. 1 8 lKS J & TRKR.J fi'/1 tD2 2025 and 2 on 19.07.2023 and 05.08.2023, and thereafter pass:d the order fixing compensation at Rs.2,50.0001 per acre. It is also c.rntended that the possession of the subject land, adrncasuring Acs.?.0() eactr in Survey No.32l/I']P, stoocl rcsumed by the Govemment in 2008 rrnd subsequently handed over to APIIC/TSIIC, and that the corrpensatit n dctcrmined was only an ex gratia settlement in respect of the balance lzLnd of Acs. 6.18 guntas, where rival r:lairrs rernaincd unlcsolved

17. On the contrary. the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2./wrjt petitioners contend that the procecdings dated 13.10.2023 are ,.:r fhcic arbitrary, contrary to [aw, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A ot the Constitution of India. It is their specific case that the land was validlv assigned to their f-athers under D-fbnr pattas in 1977, that after their der .rise, the names of respondent Nos.l and 2 were dulv mutated in the revenue records, and that they have been in continuous possession and cultivatioLr until the forcible dispossession. They further contend that thc Govemmen I Jid not issue any notice alleging violation of conditions of assignment, nor initiated any proceedings of resutnption under law. Therefore, the appcilants cannot rely on resumption of lands in 2008 without proof of complii-nce or observance of due process of law. The respondent Nos. I and 2 also contend that fixation of compensation without initiating acquisition oloceedings either 3 I 1^SJd IRA/i../ tv_4 !a)) )0)5 under the Act, 1894, or under the Act 2013, is wholly irnpernissible and it is submitted that the deprivation of land without payment of tair compensation detcrlnilted under statute amounts to violation of constitutional guarantees and inll'inces their right to livelihood

18. The record placed befbre this Cour1, makes it clear that except for issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 13.lO-2023, whereby compensation at the rate ol Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre was flxed fbr the subject lands, no acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, or the Act,20l3 were initiated. In particular, no prelirninary notification under Section ll of the Act 20 l3 w'as issued. Section I I of the Act mandates that whenever the Government considers that land is required or likely to be required for a public purpose, a preliminary notification specifying the details of the land to be acquired must be published, which is a mandatory step to initiate acquisition proceedings and also to inform the owners of land to be acquired. The absence of such notiflcation demonstrates a clear failure to comply with statutory requirements.

19. Further, determination of compensation was not determined as mandated under Section 23 of the Act, 2013. Section 23 mandates the Collector to determine compensation based on market value, potentiality of the land, and other statutory f'actors. ln the present case, compensation was l0 ,IA-\) I\ I RKR J It.1 i0a) 2025 unilaterally fixed at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre without reqa"(i to these ttrctors. and without a lirrrnal cnquiry or assessmcnt untlc . thc Act, 2013 Furlhemrore, it is evident that no awar<l undel section ll) olthc Act.20l3 was eve r passcd. Scction 30 ol thc Act, l0l3 providr':. thar an ar,"ard of compensation can [,e made onlv afier the statutory pR,cedur.c prescribed under Sections I I and 23 of the Act has been duly ct,nrplied with. The omission to issue stLch an award rendcrs the irrpuqnccl 1t.occr,-dinqs dated

13. I 0.1023 void uh initio and Iesallv unsustainahlc

20. '[he Appellants had placed reliancc upon a lcu-,r ol'the District Collector dated 20.11.2013 addressed to thc Vice-Chairrrurn arrd Managing Director of TSII(' rcquesting deposit of Rs. 32,71 ,780/- rorvar.ds ex gratia compensation. It is evident that a rnerc administrative,.t'rnnrrrnication or letter cannot substitute the statutory acquisition procccclir gs rcrluired under the Act.

21. The plca of'tltc appellants that posscssion had alre .ulv bcen taken in 2008 and therefore only ex gratia was payablc, cannot lrr.sustaincd. It is well settled that lorciblc possession ol'privatc or assign,:d land without following due process o1'law does not disentitle the landlrolder in ctaiming fair cornpensation. 'l-he leamed Single Judge has rightll.observed that the Ilon'ble Supreme Court in Yadaiah's case (supra) had,rateg()rically held ](.tJ & rR(ir,-/ ty,,l 102: )ui that even assignees of govemr.,ent land are entitled to compensation equivalent to the full market value, on par with partedars, and that any deprivation of such cornpensarion would bc unconstitutional.

22. l'his court is ol'the conside'ed view that the distinction sought to be drawn bv the appellants w.ith respect ol lVlekala pandu's case (supra) with that of, Yadaiah's case (supra) is wholly misconceived. The underlying principle in the above cited decision is that the compensation to assignees cannot be illusory or arbitrary but ntust be just, fair and reasonable. Any deprivation of such fbir conrpensation rvould anlounl to violation of Article l4 of the Constitution, and would also amount to unlawful deprivation of property in violation of Arricle 300-A of the Constitution. At this stage, it is nccessary to refel to the fbllowing portion of the Judgment in Mekala Pandu's case (supra): /t sesslon o cuses y'here the assita lha St1le in accordunce Y,ilh lhe tcrms o "109. In thc cirturttstuncts. rtc hold thut the assi ees o the governmenl lands are entilled lo out'menl o omDensal0n eauivolent lo the full markel wtlue ol the land und othcr benefil.s rtn t)ur with full owners of the Land eyen in ned land-y are takcn ant ot b I e .fitrther hold that thoush such resumDlion is litr a puhlic purpost even in cases where the State does rutt inwtke lhc covcnant of the grant or patta to resunrc the land Jbr such public purpo.se and resorls to acquisition oJ the larul under the pntvi.sions of thc Land Acquisition Act, 1891, the assignees shall he entitled to conryen.tdtion us owners of the land and for all other consequentiul henefi.l.s undcr the provisions of the Ldnd Acquisition .4ct, 1891. No condition incorytoratetl in pu o/deed of assignment shall operate us a clog putting any rcstriclion on the right of the assignee to claim full compensation as ov,nar of the land. " t2 | ..1 ir:1 )o25

23. llence, the l-arger Bench judgment in Mekalo Purrr,tu's cose (supra) reinforccs thr'r'en proposition subsequently affirrlerl i l'udoiah's case (.Strpru) that assiqnees arc enl.itled to cornpensation :rluir,.rlent to full markel r alue togcther ri ith all conse quent.ial benelits orr itr rvith pattadar.s. Any contrary interprctation denying such compcniiLrion nould be unconstitutional and unsustainable in law VII. CONCLUSION:

24. I'his Courr is ol-the considered view that the ordc- larcd 28.04.2023 in W.I'}. No. 4271.6 of 2022 had only directed the authoriri:s ro encluire into rival claims and pa1, compensation in accordancc u itlr larv and did not e lnpo\vcr thc autho|itics to bypass the statutory mandat..r of the Act. 201 3 ln I'act. the vcrv ob.ject of the Act, 2013 is to ensure lr- ir compcnsation, rchabilitation, and transparency, ivhich stands det-eatcd il' .he compcnsation is unilaterally flretl q.ithout passing an award

25. -fherefbre. the qric'r,ance ol the writ petitione -s that thev were deprived of conrpcnsation equivalent to market valu,: is justificd. The Hon'ble Supremc C'ourt in catena of Judgments has lrelrl that rnarket value reflected in the basic value register is not a true reflection of the prevailing market value, and that the potentiality of the land nrrrst be taken into \ \ 1,(5Jd,n(R,J 1,1 tql 2a)5 account ri,hile determining cornpensation. Adrnittedly, no such exercise was undeftakcn in the present case. lnstead, a llat rate ol Rs.2,50,000/- per acre was tlxed rvithout relerence to comparable sales, potentiality, or statutory rnultipliers as prescribcd in the Act, 7013. Hence. the leamed Single Judge was justified in holding that the irnpugned proceedings dated

13.10.2011 cannot be sustained in larv, as they deprive the Respondent Nos. I and 2/writ petitioners of their statutory and constitutional rights In the light of the loregoing discussion, we find no merit in the Appeal and thereby the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. I I 004 oi 2023. does not w'amant any interf'erence VIII. RESULT:

26. Accordingly, the Appeat stands disnrissed. In the circuntstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, il any, in thrs Appeal shalI also stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/' E SECTION OFFICER I I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI (For His Lordships kind perusal) & One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE VAK|TI RAMAKRTSHNA REDDy (For His Lordships kind perusal) To,

1. 11 LR Copies 2 Th-e Under S_ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. I I I I ! I I I I I i BN LS I B uildings, Hyd e -a bad.

3. The, Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4 Two CCs to AD"/OCATE GENERAL, High Court for th.) State of Telangana 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HO{VIE, Ii.gl1c_oqrt forthe State of Telangana [OUT] 6. One CC to SRt M VtJAyA](U|VAR GOUD, Advocate ICpUCI 7. One CC to SRI T.S PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocare [OI.,UC] 8. Two CD Copres - J I HIGH COURTT DATED:0611A12025 \ \ JUDGMENT WA.No.1022 of 2025 /,4, ' l! ):' i;'j '_-. i l:r)t', -^ , i r:: .: ',-, - :. L, 1: NIIJ ?86 ./ ;)- r.r. . ,.| :l -.,./ 1 I DISMISSING I'HE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS \\ i