High Court · 2025

Petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particurarry one in the nature of wRlr oF Mandamus after caring for the records of Award proceedings No B/1575/2006, dt.16-04-2007 rerating to the rejection of craim petition U/Sec'18 of L'A Act, dt.2g-11- 2012 and set-aside the.same being iregar, arbitrary, nu,, void and viorative of principres of naturar justice and fair pray, in the interest of justice and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.3 to receive the craim Petition Under sec.18 0f L.A. Act, dr.2g-11-2012 and the same be referred to Civil Court for adjudication of the claim. l.A.NO:3 OF 2015 (WPMP. NO: 19903 O F 2015) Petition Under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to set- aside the orders passe(l by the Respondent No.3 in rejecting the clai.n petition of the Petitioner filerl l. J' lec. 1B of L.A. Act, dt.29-11-2012 under the award proceedings No.B/' 57ai 20()6, dt.16-04-2007, in the interest of jL sti:e, pending disposal of the mairr v/r il pelrtion. Counsel for the Petitic rr':r : SRI M.A.BASITH Counsel for the Respon,lsrl1 Il..'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND UFIBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Responrlent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTTCIi 1.. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15273 of 2015 ORDBR I{eard Iearned counscl 1br peritioner., learned Govemment Pleader tbr Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent No. I and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on bchalf of lespondent Nos.2 and 3, and perused the record

2. 'l'he case of thc petitioncr in briel- is that though land acquisition award was passcd on 16-04-2007, thc said award was not served on it for a period of 5 years and lhe petitioner became aware of the said award only on receiving letter dated 08-09-2012 calling upon it to attend the oftlce of the respondents on 08- l0-2012 at 3 p.m. with relevant ciocuments proving its title over the property, acquired by the respondents for road widcning, to receivc the cornpcnsation amount. l. Petitioner lunher contends that though the respondent authorities claim to have issued notice under Section l2(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (fol shorl 'the Acr') on 2l-04-2OO't 2 inForm-9.lll]:lcllrrolicchasbcenscrvedonilatrda;such, petitioner v/lts I lt lrvare of the arvard passed' much le s; t'eing called upor rtt I. LL''|\e lhe compcllsation'

4. Petitic,l,: LLlther contends that on being issuecl i^ ith letter dated 08-09-21 I rnd having learnt ofthe respondents clai ning to have passe l ari rrd on 1(r-04-07' it had submitted ap1'licatior.r dated 29- l l '- (r I ;ccl<inq re{'erence urrder Scction l 8 trt th : Act to the Cotrrt il lce the colnLlensatloll anlounl- determinerl tY the Land Acqrli:rit ll {)l'ficer is not acceptable to it'

5. It is lh,' [r,rt .her contention of petitioner that t]rough the aforesaid a1-r1r 1g"11tlt'l rvas hled within the time prescrib:d under the Act. ali:' hrLving hnou'ledge of the respondents lassilrg a,,vard, tl e i' ,Pondent aulhoritie s' horvevcr' b'v the i tpugrred proceedings ,lrtel l8-01-10 l"i rc.lcctcd tlte satne on he 'lround that the s,ziic l'ctiriorl u'as not fited within the timc oi l' rnonths from thc clat e o1- 'eceipt of the notice under Section 1ll( l) I Act' and thus, ll t' sarne is tin-re barred' which action on tlle pafi of respondenl rirthrrities, it is contended as higlrly illepal and arbitrarv 3 6 It is also conrendcd by the petitioner that though it was issued with notice dated 08-09-2012 [o appear before the authorities on 08-10-2012, inasmuch as copy of the award was not served on it, it had made an application to the authorities under the Right to Information Act on 14-10-2014 for fumishing copy of the albresaid award, and thus, the limitation for plelerring application would commence only after being furnishecl rvith copy of the award. It is thus, contended that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned proceedings rejecting the application filed by petitioner is contrary to the Act.

7. In support of the aloresaid contentions, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliancc on the.iudgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Nathu Vs. State of Gujarat antl anothert

8. Per contru. learned (]overnmenl Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the other hand would submit that the claim of the petitioner of not being aware of the respondent authorities passing award on '1zotz; 5 scc zso 4 16-04-2007 a '( i also not being issued rvith notice und()r S,.rction ..1 l2(2) of tle rr:t cr,rnnot be acceptccl. [t is contendetl on t,cf alf of the respordr:rr [] rat as the petitioncr did not cantc l,tru'l,rd to receive tit: c,:'t'1t,:nsaLion aurount. thc authoritics har,,: issued notice dat:<l (ri-01-2012 calling r-rpon the petitiorrer t(, appear belore the arrilr rrily on 08-10-20 l2 at 3 p.rn. It is aiso,:cr.tt,:nded that tl-re petili-'r.ur appeared belore the authority on the sairI date and receiv:il 'lr: c,rnpensation amount, and only thereaft:r, as an al'tefthougrl t-r.:, liled thc application seeking refcrcncc Lo Civil Couft undt:r' Sc :tion l8 o['thc .\ct 9 . Learr erl ( or,,,:mrncnl Plcadcr and Iearned Standinq C]ounsel fufther conter ,I th:rt as rcgalds thc clair-n o1 the petitio rcr , rf' the time limit 1,,r,:,:r'i1red under thc Act is to run frotn the dirte of petitioner rcirir llrnished with copy of the award unde. RII Act is concern,:tl, tl t said claiur of'the pctitionel cannot be a:cr.rptecl, as the peti:ic,r ,: h;rd filed application sccking relelenct rt rlouft ,rd.r Ssgti,rr I lf the r\ct on 19-II-20 l2 i.e. er'en bcfb e the petitioner a1:p roagrling the responderrt authorities and lrlirg the applicatiorL urrr et RJ'I Act lor being furnishcd u,ith iL copv of Award, rvLLicl c nh goes to shoi,r, that the petitioner. rvas : rvrLre of 5 the land acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondent authorities and the Award passed. l0 Leamed Gove mmenf Pleader and leamed Standing Counsel thus submit that the impugned order dated 28-03-2013 rejecting the application li ted hr1, thc perit.ioncr as bcyond time prescribed under the Act, does not call fbr any interlerence morc particularli, since, the petitioner is seeking to claim that the limitation prescribed under the Act is 6 months while as per the State Amendment. it is only 6 weeks or 2 months under Section 18(l) and l8(2)olthc Act respcctively. I 1. I have takerr note of respectivc. contentions urged.

12. Aduiittcdll , thc as,arcl was passed vide proceeding No.Bil5751200(r dated 16-04-2007.'lhe respondent authorities on passing of the afbresaid order, claim to have issued notice of award under Section l2(2) of the Act on 2l-04-2007 to the petitioner at its addrcss as recorded therein, which is subject premises under acquisition. 'lhus, the notice of the award as issued to the pctitior-rcr- is in accordance with thc service of notice as prescribed under Section 45 ol the Acl.. Though, petitioner 6 claims of it rl: t hl ving any knorvledge of notice or rt s ro rclent autholities pas: ing the au'ard and having learnt ol t tt: zrlr'ard being pass:d lr 1\' ou being issued r'vith notice datcd 08-t' q- l0l2' even by rt:cl< rr it-l1r the date on rvhich thc petitionel r ' as i;sued withnoticecrrcd08.0g-20l2dircctingitttlappcarllclbl.ethe authorities orr 08't0-2012 al 3 pmaud the pctitiorcIaving appeared bclr': a'-rthority, thc pctitioncr at least fitln th: ciate of receipt of rrcti:e or appearing betirre the ar'rthorill' o I th'r date mentione<l !r lhe notice and leceiving thc compensat on r']annot claimthirlididnothavetheknorvledge.l|,gsp.lndent authorities 1l r: sing award' Ihc petitioner on being s:r ve'l with notice on 0t' 09-2012, ought to ha\c takcn steps lbr filirig applicatit,n rr rle' Section l8 ol Llic Act scckirrg rt l'--t'e ucc to Court. [.Io\'.u,:i er. lor the reasons best ktror,r,n, tlrt- pel itiolret did not chooije 1t fi[t: such application cven u4len it appe tred bclore the conc:t'r.t:cr arrtholities on 08-10-20 l2 ln fact' th'r pe.itioller only afte r a:1'caring before thc respondent authorit'v cn he day fixed undc' the notice datcd 08-09-2012 and rer:e iv ng the compensaii, r - iullount, had fllecl the applicatit'r' ;eeking referenc,: Lttr'er liection l8 of thc Act only on 29- I I -llt l2' which 7 is beyond the period of'l monrh period prescribed under Section l8 of the Acr (as applicable in rhc ersrwhire State of Andhra Pradesh). As rightly nored by rhe respondent in the impugned proceeding, the said application f.iled by the petitioner seeking reference to Coufi under Section lg of the Act is not only beyond the time prescribecr under the Act from the date of passing o[' [he award or issuancc o[ notice of award under Section l2(2) ol thc Acr. but also fionr the notice dated 08-09-2012, whereby rhc. petitioner was directed to appear. before the authority, since rhe notice dated Og_Og_2012 is to be considered as actual or constructive knowledge of the award having been passecl. l3 In view of the above, this Court is of' the view that the present Writ Petirion as lllcd is clcvoici ol- merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No cosrs 14 As a sequel, miscellaneous pctitions pending if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To 1 2 J 4 SA GJP Two CC to GP FOR MCPL ADIVN AND URBAN DE for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI M.A.BASITH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI tvl.ARUN KUIMAR, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies SD/- T. JAYASREE PUTY REG]STRAR D ECTION OFF]CER LOPMENT, High Court -l I -( YlE STA =\a,r c, t) 03 'tuit 'tI?' (" l' i t cE-( rr. t ii' HIGH COURT DATED:0610112(t25 ORDER WP.No.15273 cll2015 DISMISSING'TIFIE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.