'1 . Kummari Narsimlu v. '1 . State of Telangana

Petition Undr:r 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 Sth Respondent not to disturb the possession of the Petitioners on the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.3.00 gts each in Sy.No. 321lPP situated at Karkapatla Village, Markook Mandal, Siddipet district by suspending the order of the 2nd Respondent passed in vide Proc. No. E1l'1969/2023 dated 13.1O.2023. {1."d Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : G.P FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER f ' I I l I F. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31OO4 of 2O23 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order passed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.E1/1969/2023 dated

13.10.2023 and to set asicie the same, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without following due procedure for acquisition and for other appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the Government has assigned land to the fathers of the petitioners admeasuring Acs.3.0O each in Survey No.321/PP situated at Karakapatla Village, Markook Mandal, Siddipet district and issued D-form patta vide File No.A3/96176, S1.No.54, dated 22.02.1977 and fi1e No.A3/96/76, Sl.No.SS dated 22.02.1977 and after their death, the names of the petitioners have been entered in the revenue records ald since then they are in possession and cultivating the said land. It is further stated that when respondent No.S herein i.e., Sanz5rme Biological Private Limited made attempts to interfere with their possession over the subject 1ald, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.42726 of 2022 wherein this Court vide order dated 28.O4.2203 directed 2 respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry and consider the claims of the petitioners and pay compensation in respect of the subject property in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said orders, the respondents rvithout following the procedure as contemplated either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the LA Act, 1894") or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re habilitation ald Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the RR Act, 2013"), forcibly taken possession of the subject land and issued the impugned order granting meagre compensation of Rs.2,5O,000/- per acre for the land admeasuring Acs.2.OO each to the petitioners. Mr. M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the procedure adopted by the Government for determination/lixation of compensation in respect of the subject land is contrary to the provisions of the RR Act, 2013; without initiating any acquisition proceedings either under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 or under the provisions of the RR Act, 2013, the Government is not having any power or authority for fixation of compensation; even assLlming that the compensation value f 3 fixed by the Government is accepted by the petitioners, mere acceptance on the part of the petitioners does not take away their right to claim fair compensation in terms of the provisions of the RR Act, 2013; there are no proceedings, as such, issued by the Government stating that the petitioners have violated the terms amd conditions of assignment pattas; since there is no allegation that the petitioners have violated any the conditions of assignment pattas and since the subject land has been resumed for public purpose, fixation of the compensation below 't the market va,lue amounts to arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, which not only infringes the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India but also equally amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 3O0-A of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, relying on the counter allidavit filed by respondent No.3, submits that in pursuance of the orders dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.42726 of 2023, the District Collector provided the opportunity of hearing to the parties ot l9.OT .2023 and

05.08.2023 and after verifying the relevant records and taking into consideration of the market value prevailing in the locality ., It t I I I l 4 passed the order fidng the compensation payable in favour of the petitioners and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4/TSIIC, on the other hand, relying on the counter a-fhdavit hled by respondent No.4, contends that in pursuance of the order dated 2a.O4.2O23 passed by this Court in W.P.No.42726 of 2022, the District Collector, Siddipet, conducted enquiry and after affording al opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and ali other concerned persons, passed a reasoned order vide proceedings No.E i / 1 969/ 2023 dated 13. 10.2023 directing the corporation to deposit the determined compensation anounts; and, in view of executing convey€rnce deeds in lavour of respondent No.4, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the RR Act, 2013. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, relying on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.S, contends that after acquiring the land, respondent No.4/APIIC executed conveyance deeds in favour of I respondent No.5, who in turn obtained necessary permissions I a I (' ) for setting up a project ald now it is in the process of making construction over the subject land as per the building permit; ald moreover, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.42726 of 2O2, the District Collector after going through the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector has passed the impugned order and as such it does not suffer from any legal infirmities ald prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It i5 evident that except issuing the impugned proceedings by the District Collector Iixing compensation at the rate of Rs.2,5O,O00/- per acre, for the land admeasuring of Acs.2.00 each to the writ petitioners along with interest, no proceedings have been placed on record to state that the respondents have followed the procedure as contemplated either under the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 or the RR Act, 2013. Admittedly, the compensation amount has been determined by the District Collector, after the RR Act, 2013 came into force. No acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Government by issuing notification under the RR Act, 2O13 nor any award has been n.- passed in respect of the subject land. On the contrary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment has placed on 6 record the letter addressed by the District Collector to the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, TSIIC, vide Lr.No.Ell 1969 /2023 dated 2O.t2.2023, requesting to deposit an amount of Rs.32,7I,780/- for payment of ex gratia to tLre larrdlosers covered in W.p.Nor42726 of 2023. It is u''ell settled proposition of law that the deprivation of the assignee's right to payment of just compensation equivalent to the market value of the assigned land may amount to deprivation of right to livelihood. The denial of constitutional claim to ieceive just compensation after depriving the assignee of his land is impermissible except pursuant to a constitutionally vatid rule or law, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Yadaiah vs. The State of Telauganal. Furthermore, this Court and the Hon,ble Apex Court, time and again, in catena of judgments, held that market value prescribed in the basic value register is not the true market value to determine the compensation being payable to the landlosers and potential value of the lands has to be taken into consideration. , 'i i I 'u oz3 INSC 66a J (t 7 The facts of the present case are similar to the case of Yadaiah (supra), wherein it is held that assignees of the government lands are entitled to payment of compcnsation equivalent to the full market value of the land and other benelits on p€rr with the pattadars. It is that no condition .settled incorporated in the patta/deed of assignment shall operate as a clog putting any restriction on the riglrt of the assignee to claim fair compensation as owner of the land. It is settled that while determining the compensation, the potentiality of the larrd has to be taken into consideration for fuiing the market value. No doubt, patta lands always fetches mcre market value when compared to assigned lands, as assignees are entitled to enjoy the lands subject to fulfillment of the conditions of assignrnent patta, whereas pattadars are having right to utilize their lands as per their desire. It is for the competent authority to take into consideration these aspects while determining the right and fair compensation. Since in the instant case, the said procedure has not been followed by the respondents, while determining the compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Collector deserves to be set aside and the petitioners are declared to be entitled to claim compensation in accordance with provisions of the Act, 2013. I { 8 ( Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 i.e., the District Collector, Siddipet District, vide proceedings No.E1/196912023 dated 13.10.2023, and respondent No.2 is directed to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land of the petitioners admeasuring Acs.2.O0 each and pay compensation to them, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ ECTTON OFFICER To . Hvderabad. 1 . The Principa Secretary, (Revenue), Secretary Building' State of Telangana at 2. The District Oollector, Siddipet Dist', Telangana 5. rnu fuf,.itaar, Markook Mandal, Siddipet Dist ' l elangana' i. TL" rtrr""sing Director' iJ"g'n" stite lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation ItO, Otn F16oiParishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad' 5. ;;;;ar i;ip ron nssrCNN/lEur, High court for the state of relansana at 6. r;; cc; i" bp rbn HoME, High court for the State of Telangana at . oil" cC to snt u.vt.tRvA KUMAR GoUD, Advocate [oPUCl . One CC to SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate (OPUC) Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TSIIC (OPUC) 7 o o

0.Two CD CoPies I SA BS -tJ-S/ I I'I II I I I I I I I I rF (J ,r. \ {HE SI4 c 1 I l4i,,t Zrii5 PATCH HIGH COUR'I DATED:0610312025 ORDER WP.No.31004 ot 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ ,d I I I I I I I I I I I I