AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed legality and validity of the District Level Negotiation Committee proceedings dated 30.12.2019 of Nalgonda District. By way of the aforesaid proceedings, award has been passed in respect of land proposed for excavation of gravity canal for Kaleshwaram Project at Veliminedu Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, to an extent of Acs.16.32½ guntas.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land belonging to the five petitioners have also been acquired by virtue of the impugned proceedings. However, they have assailed the proceedings on the ground that the award was passed after one year of publication of notice under Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (briefly, ‘the 2013 Act’ hereinafter), which is impermissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to page 39 of the paper book to contend that the concerned notice was published in Namasthe Telangana and Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspapers on 03.01.2018. But, the award was passed much later on 30.12.2019. He has drawn our attention to the provisions contained in Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act which says that where no declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded.
However, learned State Counsel submits that the impugned proceedings have been conducted not only under the 2013 Act but also under the Telangana State Amendment Act, 2016. By the State Amendment Act, Chapter IV-A has been inserted in the 2013 Act with retrospective effect from 01.01.2014 dealing with voluntary acquisition of land. He has referred to Section 30A forming part of Chapter IV-A to contend that in case of acquisition by way of agreement, the above limitation of twelve months would not be applicable.
Submissions made have been considered.
Section 30A of the 2013 Act as adverted to above, reads as under:
“30A. Acquisition of land by the State Government by entering into agreement.:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act, or any other law, whenever it appears to the State Government that the land is needed in any area for any public purpose, the State Government or its Authorized Officer will enter into an agreement with the willing land owner to sell the land in favour of the State for the matters specified therein in a prescribed form.
(2) The State Government or its Authorized Officer shall pass an order in terms of agreement under sub-section (1) for acquisition, and the substance of the order shall be notified in the Gazette. On such publication of notification, the title, ownership and all interests of the land owner who enters into agreement, shall vest with the State, free from all encumbrances.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Act l6 of 1908), no agreement entered under sub-section (1) shall be liable to registration under that Act.
(4) If any family, other than the family of the land owner who entered into an agreement, is affected by the acquisition of land under this section, the State Government shall pay a lumpsum amount towards rehabilitation and resettlement, if any, as prescribed in the rules framed hereunder:
Provided that no agreement or the lumpsum amount towards rehabilitation and resettlement as may be prescribed, shall be abnormally at variance to the disadvantage of the land owners.”
7.1. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that sub-section (1) of Section 30A of the 2013 Act, as inserted by the Telangana State Amendment, starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in the 2013 Act or in any other law, whenever it appears to the State Government that the land is needed in any area for any public purpose, the State Government or its authorised officer shall enter into an agreement with the willing landowner to sell the land in favour of the State Government for the matters specified therein in the prescribed form.
We do not find any limitation engrafted in Section 30A of the 2013 Act alluded to hereinabove. That apart, in the impugned proceedings we find that notice under the Telangana Amendment Act, 2016, was issued to the landowners/interested persons to attend before the District Level Negotiation Committee on 29.10.2019 for settlement of compensation through negotiation. After prolonged negotiation, landowners to an extent of Acs.16.32½ guntas filed their willingness in the prescribed form to settle their claim through Negotiation Committee and also agreed to compensation at the rate of Rs.12.00 lakhs per acre as fixed by the District Level Negotiation Committee in Survey Nos.742, 746, 747, 754 and 773 situated at Veliminedu Village of Chityal Mandal for the purpose of excavation of gravity canal namely Kaleshwaram Project earth work at Veliminedu Village.
Prayer made by the petitioners pertains to the aforesaid plots. All the landowners who had given their willingness though necessary parties have not been arrayed as respondents in the proceedings. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition filed is wholly misconceived, in addition to being vitiated by non-joinder of necessary parties.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.