Mrs. Sunkati Sailaja v. State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-09. Mrs. Sunkati Sailaja v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3166 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:91 OF 2024 Between: Mrs. Sunkati Sailaja, Wo. S. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 55. years, . Rl/o. Flat No. 613/A Ushia Enclave, Navodaya Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad- 5ooo73 ... PETtrtoNER AND 1. State of Telangana, Rep by its Secretary Department of Revenue Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. C6mmittee for Land Acquisition(Negotiation), Rep by its Chairman The Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District. 3. District Collectbr, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ea'st Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5. Tahsildar, Kandukuru Mandal Kanduklru, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabgd 6. Zonal Manager, Rep by its Member/Convenei of TSIIC Shamshabad Zone, TSIIC 7.
Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation(TSllC)' Rep by its Chairiran and Managing Director 6th Floor Parrishram Bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 8. T. Bharathamma, w/o Late T. Pentaiah, aged 63 years' Occ. Agriculturist, r/o Utlapalli Village, Muchcherla Revenue Village, Kandukuru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ. order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 to 7 in seeking to pay compensation exclusively to the Respondents No.
8 without out considering the Sale Agreement dated 30/06/2006 as illegal, arbitrary and u nco n stitutio n a I IANO:1O F 2024 Petition under section 'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue direction to th'e Respondents 1 to 7 to not disburse the compensation as per Notification vide Lr. No. LC3t3o7}t2o16-Mucherra-Kanciukur dated 2o-og-2016 to the Respondent No. B, pending disposal of the petition Writ (Prayer is amended as per c. o. dated 12to1t2024 in rA No. 2t2024) lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: ,H:"U: fl f"1,f,fl iirp,iifl ,',1:f I"'dl? il[1ffiji,ff *B#I'R3',zal;"Vf; ..... PETtTtONERyRESpONDENT No. 8 AND '1. Mrs. Sunkati Sailaia Wo. S. Venkateswara Rao, ag_ed about 55 years, Ryo. Flat Usha' Encrave, itL;il;y;-i. iiil, verrareooysud-a, Hyderabad- |,iOoPJ"o 2. state of retansana, Rep by it. s"". "turl #:::H'I:;t: Secretariat, Hyde-rabad ^ Rep by ts chairman rhe Joint : E3l[:1,fffi*!
:flSffBiil,,,,,Si(Nesotiation), s Hfr*l*"r'? rir'5srf,+ffi'fftflffi1t$,*+illl,$rffiffi,,,ean" 6. Tahsildar, Kanduku 7. Zonal Manaoer. Re TSIIC 8. TelanganaStatelndustriallnfrastructureCorporation(TSilC), Rep by its chairman. and Managing Director - -" 6th Floor parrishram Basheerbash, Hvaerabio. Bhavan :;;l"r=*rr,*=spoNDENTs 1_7 Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim stay granted in LA. No. 1 ot 2oz4 in w. p- No. 91 of 2024 daled 12-01 . 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KATTA SRAVYA . lto5: Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6&7: SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR TTSIIC Counsel for the Respondent No. B: SRI T. S. PRAVEEN KUMAR REp Ms. MANJIRI S. cANU The Court made the following: ORDER i a l I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.
VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITIO N No. 91 OF 2024 ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. l to 4, Sri L. Prabhakar Re,Jdy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Sri T. S. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel appea'ing for respondent No. 8 and perused the record. 2. The c:rse o[ the petitioner, in brief, is that the husband. of the Sth responcent had entered into an agreement of sale dated 30. 06. 2006 with the petitioner for sale of his lanct admeasuring Ac. 5. 12 gts. in Sy. No. 155/33 (kasra pahani Sy. No. t55/6) situated at Mucherla village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the husband of the 8tl, respondent had dec:eased on 17. 1 I . 2OO9 that pending e-xecution of the srale deerl, the petitioner was out in possession of the subject lrrnd; and that the petitioner taking advantage of the subject land being acquired b1' the respondent authorities for tl-re benefit of respondent Nos.
6 and 7 is seeking to claim compensation amount in resct:ct of the said land which she is noL entitlecl. 3. It is also the further contention of the petitioner that due to non-execution of formal sale deed in her favour by the gtrr respondent's husband during his life time, the subject land stands in the name of the 8n respondent,s husband and for the said reason, the respondent authorities have shown the name of the husband of the 8ft respondent in the land acquisition proceedings initiated and also the Award passed on 2g. I 1. 2022; that for the said reason the petitioner had approached the respondent authority and submitted representation bringing to the notice of the authorities the aforesaid facts and sought for not disbursing the compensation amount to the €h respondent in furtherance of the Award dated 28. 11.
2023 and that inspite of the petitioner bringing the above facts to the notice of the respondent authorities, they are proceeding to disburse the compensation amount in respect o{ the subject land in favour of the 8ft respondent, which action it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary. 4. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the official respondents is not filed. Counter-afhdavit on behalf of the 8th respondent is hled. 5. Learned (iovernment pleader for Land Acquisition however, submits that the respondent authorities having passed an Award and noting the objection made by the petitioner, have made a reference as to the apportionment of the compensation amount to the authority in exercise of powers under Secdon 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation, and Transparenc-tr in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the ActJ. zrs the respondent authority cannot go into title disputes. 6.
Learned Go vernment pleader further submits that r-he authorities have rrrade reference under Section ZZ oL the Act to the authorit5r c. r stituted under Sectio n 64 of re Act on 02. O8. 2024 by depositing Lhe amount of compensation payable in respect of the la'ld admeasuring Ac. 5. 12 gts. in Sy. No. 155/3 of Mucherla revenue villagc, Kandukur Mandal for the said authority under Section 64 of the Act to decide as to the apportionment of the said compensation amount betrveen the petitioner ald the 8d respondent herein. 7. The 8d respondent by the counter_affidavit had denierd the writ avermerlts as to the execution of the sale agreement and the petitioner l>eing put in possession of the sutrject rand and thus being entitled to claim compensation amount pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents and the Award passed thereafter on 2g. l 7. 2022. 8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 9.
Admittedly there is an inter se dispute between the petitioner and the 8th respondent in relation to the subject land which has been acquired by the respondent authorities by initiating land acquisition proceedings by issuing preliminary notification under Section i I of the Act on 2O. O9. 2O 16 ;hich culminated with passing of Award dated 2g. 1 1. 2022. 10. Under the provisions of the Act, whenever there is a dispute with regard to the person entitled to receive compensation shall noL consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the iand, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the authority is required to make a reference by depositing the compensation with the authority under Section 64 of the Act.
In the facts of the present case, since there is a dispute relating to apportionmenI of the compensation amount between the pedtioner and the gm respondent, the acquisition authority is required to deposit the ) amount of colnpensation with the authority under Section 64 of the Act, so ttrat the said authority would adjurlicate as to the entitlement between the rival claimants. Though the respondent authority rvzrs required to undertake the aforesaid exercise on passing of the Award on 28. 1 1. 2022 by de positing the amount, the acquisition authority did not undertake such <:xercise immediately.
However, as it is now submitted tc, the Court that l( lt the acquisition authorig having deposited the compensation amount with the authority under Section 64 of the Act by exercising po\4'ers the authority under Section 77 of thenct, ana the Authorit'y under Section 64 of the Act being seizeci of the matter in rela,-ion to adjudication as to the rival claim between the petitioner and the 8e respondent, this Court is of tire view that grievanc:e of the petitioner not to disbr-rrse the compensatioll amount to 8th respondent stands a,ldressecl. 1 1. Srnce the respondent authorities have alr,:ady deposited the amount rvith the authoriry constituted under Sectior-t 64 of the Act, it is ,tpen for the petitioner to establish her claim before the authority as to her entitlement/ claim to receive the compensation amot. tnt in respec[ of the land a<:quired by the respondent under the Award dated 28. 1I. 2022. and direction' the Writ 12. Subject to the above observation Petition is disPosed of.
No costs' Writ if any' pending in the Miscellaneous petitions, closed' Petition, shall stand SD/-S. MALLIKAR JUNA RAO ASSTST RE GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To, i at' r S' H vd era bad f,HiL:iJ. t'JiHft l ils 3f; :lilflll',,? P, &"'"' " :#],H+]f]#,'-Hish,rsr'*tt" tB;*[,;$ff " Hlaeiiura ','fffi ... of rsllc Shamshabad - - - oY its lvlember/convener a Zi:nal Manager, ReP ,1lA:JSi',fAWy3,le'[8,Pii:? \"JiT""i? ]%',13ft'i,"J#Y:H'' at '? 'l'JSs. %hrHJ[:oeXUe State or rerangana fl9"''lB*'t'"'5'YfJ s croPucr ll H: SS il ttYl,tonfStmt:'^? '? 'L? ""'535"lsr CoPies 12. Two CD BTI BS --rseJ 'flry7'... :4 7:r* HIGH COURT DATED:0911212024 E 5Ill ,t t. : {t\ o/. e o ( Q ) {c ? iii5 17 t[B 1-) i \ I ORDER t a . --i- WP. No. 91 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i3 *_-,--=--:-"----i--r=:. Elrgtagtt! *
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.