D. MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE OF TELANGANA, 2016

Advertisements

D. MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE OF TELANGANA, 2016

KEYWORDS:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ante – dated, 2013 Act, land acquisition officer (LAO), High Court

INTRODUCTION:

This case is related to the issue of acquisition of land by the Government officials for the development of Metro rail project in several districts of state of Telangana. It was alleged that the acquisition order was ante – dated and the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the same.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dealt with all the writ appeals filed against order of the lower court which held that the acquisition order was not ante – dated. There were several issues raised and the Judges dealt with the matter wisely.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• The land acquisition proceedings were started in Hydrebad under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notice was issued to several people whose property came in the line of the development project. The land acquisition officer issued notice to all of them to bring the documents related to their property and further proceedings were started. 
• The Land Acquisition Officer informed the executive officer to assign the price for sixteen properties notified under the Land Acquisition Act for widening of road between Ravindra Bharati Junction and M.J. Market Junction. The Joint Collector by his letter informed the LAO that according to the market value, the price would be Rs. 52, 000 per square yard. The total amount calculated was Rs. 11,48,54,682. Hence, the Joint Collector ordered an inspection of the proposed land and passed the impugned award on 23.12.2013.
• However, the award came into public domain on 25.01.14 when an RTI was filed for inquiring about the same. Several appeals were filed in the High Court against the order of the lower court where there was conflicting opinion. One of Judges contended that the award is ante dated and shall be governed by the 2013 act however the other one said that the award has been passed before the commencement of the 2013 act.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the award is ante – dated.
2. Whether the appellants were entitled to a higher amount of compensation under the 2013 act.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

• It was alleged by the appellants that there was a delay on the part of Government officials in providing them with the information about the award. Since the award was communicated to them after the passing of the 2013 Act, hence they were entitled to get more compensation. However, the petitioners neither pleaded as to how the award is ante-dated nor had they placed any material to prove it. Hence, it was difficult for the court to accept their contention that the award is ante-dated, more so in the absence of any material being placed before the Court to establish their claim.
• The appellants further challenged the judgement given by Justice P. Naveen Rao that the award is not ante – dated. However, the High Court contended that the petitioners have simply failed to understand the findings of the learned Justice on the question of ante – dating and have failed to understand the correctness of his views. Also, in the appeals, only the conclusion given by the learned Justice had been challenged which was not sufficient. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Justice on the question of ante – dating was held to be an order of finality.
• It was further submitted by the respondents that Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 required for an award inquiry before the passing of an award which was not conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. In their submissions, the respondents depicted a self – contradictory statement where in the first instance they claimed that there is nothing which indicates the absence of award inquiry and hence it was conducted by the Government officials. However, on the other hand they contended that even if no inquiry is conducted as per Section 11, it will not amount to any kind of prejudice and unlawfulness. Hence, it was concluded by the court that the award passed on 23.12.2013 was null and void and never existed in the eyes of law.
• The High Court opined that the contentions presented by the appellants try to prove malicious intention on the part of the Government officials which is difficult to prove. The Court further said that the claim of award being ante – dated is an allegation of fraud which is difficult to establish.

JUDGEMENT:

Hence, by looking at all the records and findings, contentions of the parties and issues raised, the High Court Bench concluded that the award was not ante – dated and the appellants were not entitled to get more compensation as under the newly enacted Act of 2013. In the judgement, the High Court held that there is no writ of mandamus demanded for the conducting of award inquiry. Also, since there was no record to show that an award inquiry had taken place before the passing of the impugned award, hence, the award is null and void in the eyes of law. Hence, the contention of the appellants that they are entitled to compensation under Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not stand correct.

The award was not held to be ante – dated. It was held to be passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. However, since none of the petitioners were paid the compensation as under the Section 11 of 1894 Act before the commencement of 2013 Act, they were now entitled to higher amount of compensation as under the 2013 Act.

CONCLUSION:

The High Court through this judgement was able to explain the nuances of an ante – dated order. The clarifications given by the HC made it clear that the previous judgement passed by the learned Justice P. Naveen Rao was true in its essence and what he concluded was based on findings and records which must be kept in mind. There was a clear explanation made by the Judges on the question of malice and fraud by the Government officials. The Judges opined that fraud in public law is very different from fraud in private law and hence must be dealt with caution.

The Judges were able to impart justice in terms of the verdict they gave. The Hyderabad Metro Rail Corporation was directed to pay higher compensation to the land owners in terms of the 2013 Act if they have taken possession of their land at the earliest, at most within 4 months.

REFERENCE:

1. https://scconline-cnlu.refread.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?enc=SlRYVC0wMDAwNTE1ODQyJiYmJiY0MCYmJiYmU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmdWxsc2NyZWVuJiYmJiZ0cnVlJiYmJiZkLiBtYWhlc2gga3VtYXIgdi4gc3RhdGUgb2YgdGVsYW5nYW5hLCBkZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIHJldmVudWUgYW5kIG9yJiYmJiZBbGxXb3JkcyYmJiYmZ1NlYXJjaCYmJiYmZmFsc2U=
2. https://scconline-cnlu.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

written by TANYA RAJ intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin