High Court · 2025

Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumStance! stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ or direction more particularly writ of mandamus to declare the actioh of the respondent No.3 in not considering. and disposing of the l.A. filed for condoning the delay in filing the petition to refer the matter to competent civil court under sec. 18 of L.A. Act since 2014 filed against the Award passed by respondent No.3 vide 2112, dL.3O-11-2012 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to refer the matter under sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act with regard to Award No. 2/12, d|.30-'11-2012 I.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 51834 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to refer the matter under sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act with regard to Award No. 2112, dl. 30-11-2012 pending disposal of the writ petition, in the inlerest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Between: Ambadipudi Bhaktavatsalarao, S/o Late Ambadipudi Venkata Narayana, aged 53 years, Occ Agriculture , Rl/o 5-55, Komminepalli, Khammam-507182 ....Petitioner/Proposed Petitioner No.12 AND

1. Duddukuri lr,4adhava Rao, S/o.Chinna Venkaiah, Age 68 years, Occu Agriculturist, R/o. H.No.3-5-178/A, Pumping Well Road, Khammam Town and District

2. Duddukuri Ramadevi, Wo. Madhava Rao, Age 62 years, Occu Agricultursit, Rr/o. H.No.3-5-178lA, Pumping Well Road, Khammam Town and District 3. Pasumarthi Ram Chander Rao, S/o. Veerabhadram, Age 70 years, Occu 4- Smt.Bhagam Jhansi, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age 52 years, Occu Agriculturist, Ryo. Pandithapuram Village Kaikondayagudem (Post), Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District. Agriculturis;t, Rl/o. Ricob Bazar, Khammam Town, Khammam District

5. Ambadipurli Jayamma, S/o. Late Pullaiah, Age 70 years, Odcu Agriculturist, R/o. Pandithapuram Village Kaikondayagudem (Post), Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District.

6. Ambadipudi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Satyam or Satyamaiah, Age 55 years, Occu Agriculturist, Fl/o. Pandithapuram Village Kaikondayagudem (Post), Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District

7. Ambadipudi Jaggaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age 61 years, Occu Agriculturist, Rl/o. Pandithapuram Village Kaikondayagudem (Post), Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District ,/

8. Ambadipudi Satyam, (DIED) per L.R. petitioner No.6 9. Ambadipudi Venkata Narayhha, Died per L.R. proposed petitioner No.12 '10. Mallela Rangaiah, (died) pei 1.R., fi/ailela Mailikariuh. S/o Ranoa]Jfr- Roi +] years, Occu Agriculturist, R/o. H.No.4-2-63912, Srin'agar colony, Radh'akiishna . . nagar,.Khanaouram Haveli, (rural) Khammam Town 6nd District 11.Amba!ipudi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.-Gopaiah, Age .6g years, Occu Agriculturist Ri/o. Pandithapuram Village Kaikondayagudl-em (pbst),'Kamepalli Uandat, Khammam District. AND ...RESPONDENTSM/R|T PETIT|ONERS Department.Secretariat, HyderabaiJ. 'l . The State o-f Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue 2. The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer/RDO, Kothagudem, Khammam ..,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under 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 implead the proposed petitioner as petitioner No.1 2 as Legal Representative of deceased petitioner NO.9 , in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. DHEERAJ SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION I The Court made the following: ORDER l .:,,1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KUMAR .WRIT PETITION N0.41797 0F 20L7 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents and perused the record

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners I in brief, is that though the respondent authorities have passed an Awarcl datecl 30.11.2012 claiming the same as consent award under Section 1 1(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the ActJ, lhe consent of the petitioners was obtained by the respondent authorities forcefully taking advantage of the fact that the petitioners are all agricullurists and unaware of the procedure that is required to be fotlowed for acquiring the lands; and that the petitioners on noticing the respondent authorities having paid lesser compensation arr)ount in respect of their lands acquired have approached the respondent authorities and submitted an application dated 12.09.2014 seeking reference to Lhe Court under Section l8 of the Act insofar as the determination of compensation is concerned and inspite of the petitioners submitting the aforesaid application along with the petition to condone the delay of 610 days from 15.O1.2013 to \ \ f : r2'o9.2o14 the said application remains unconsidered, which action of the respondent authorities it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the provisions of the Act. 3. Per contra, learnccl Government pleader for Land Acquisition appearing on behalf of respondent authorit5z would submit that the Award dated 3O.l1.2O72 is a consent award whereby the petitioners have agreed for acquisition of their la,d for establishment of Z65/400 K.V. Khammam GIS pooling Station for Power Grid Corporation India Ltd and have also received the compensation u,ithout anv protest. 4. Learned Governmenl pleader further subrnits that since the petitioners have agrecd for the land acquisition, a consent award was passed on 3O.11.2012 under Section 1 1(2) ol the Act. 5. Learned Government Pleader Iurther submits that upon the respondent authorities initiating land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have agreed for passing of the consent award by executing the required documents in writing viz., Form III and IV on a non,judicial stamp paper and also have taken part in DLNC procecdings conducted before the District Collector and, as such, it is not open ior the petitioners to now claim that the aforesaid consent award was passed J either taking advantage of the petitioners being agriculturists or under coercion.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that if only the petitioners consent was obtained under coercion or otherwise, nothing prevented the petitioners from recording its protest immediately after the respondent authorities passing the award as a consent award by objecting to the same. On the other hand the petitioners had filed application after a period of one year eight months seeking reference to the Court claiming that the amount of compensation paid is not the market value or the same being lesser.

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

8. Though the petitioners claim that they being agriculturists and the respondent authorities taking advantage of their background have obtained l-heir consent for acquiring their lands for the purpose of establishment of 765/400 K.V' Khammam (ilS Pooling Station for Power Grid Corporation India Ltd, and passing the award claiming it to be a consent award, and no material is placecl before this Court by the petitioners either they being coerced for executing Form III and IV on a non-judicial stamp paper or the petitioners being prevented from raising objection immediately after passing of the award. \" \7 t I ; I 4 On the other hand the pctitioners on passing of the consent award have received the compensation amount under the eonsent award and it is only after one year eight months have filed the application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the Court. g. Further, under the Act, the authority is not vested with any power to accept application submitted beyond the period prescribed under the Acr .

10. Further, it is trite larv tha L Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1r would have no application in order to make application seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act. (See: Ad.dl. Spt. Land. Acquisition OlJicer o. Thakoredaq Majori and State of Karnataka a. Laxuman2\. 1 1. It is also to be noted that filing of the application by petitioners on 12.09.2014 seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act is after the Right to Fair Compensation, and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetflement Act, 2013 (for short 'the RFCTLARR Act, 20 13,) coming into force with effect from O 1.01.2014.

12. This only gives an impression that the petitioners realizing that under the RFCTLARR Act, 2O13, they can claim that the ' 1toez1 t r scc +rz ' 1zoos1 8 scc zoo / additional benefit, have chose to submit application claiming that the respondent authorities while acquiring their lands under consent award promising to provide employment and also agreeing to make reference to civil Court for enhancement of compensation, without explaining the reason for delay in submitting the applicatio n on 12.09 .20 14 and also without offering sufficient explanation for approaching this Court after a further period ol three years after submission of the aforesaid application, lbr this Court to appreciate the contentions urged. 13. In viera'of the abovr:, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and is accordingly ciismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ANT REGTSTRAR S SE:CTION OF FICE To, 1 2 ?'l333J?.'3iF"R-5'fffd'?S'?ff il'":Al3'lT'Yif ortnestateor 3. Two CD CoPies iJingi", at HYderabad [oUT] BM GJP F" I HIGH COURT DATED:22 tO1t2O2S ORDER WP.No.41797 of 2017 SEt1.I T4 14: t\o /\ q J 1 0 I'IAR 2[25 K*\ * s.s pAT Cg C) +t * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c.pqY G W€ i l