HC: landowner entitled to compensation

Indian Express‎: Hyderabad: Thursday, May 12, 2016.

The High Court has ruled that the owner of a land is entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 in the event of land acquisition officer’s failure to deposit the compensation amount with the civil court concerned or pay it to the landowner according to the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Justice MS Ramachandra Rao gave this ruling while allowing a petition filed by Ramprakash Agarwal, a resident of Khairatabad in Hyderabad, challenging an award passed by the special deputy collector and land acquisition officer in  1999 to acquire 59.80 square yards land along with a building therein for widening the road from Dwaraka Hotel to Visveswaraiah statue in Khairatabad.

He said the authorities had taken possession of the land and building but paid no compensation to him in view of a dispute among his family members pending before a civil court.

The Land Acquisition Act mandates that compensation amount be deposited in a civil court when the property concerned is in dispute.

After being allotted the subject land after settlement in civil court, he approached the land acquisition officer for compensation. On coming to know of the factual position of his case, he sought information under the RTI Act and approached the High Court for relief.

Since the compensation had not been deposited in a civil court, he contended that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Re-settlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013, the very proceedings for acquiring the above land stood invalidated since more than five years’ time had elapsed.

He urged the court to direct the authorities to issue a fresh notification under the Act 2013 and pay compensation to him.

After hearing the case and perusing the provisions under the Act 1894 and Act 2013 and judgments of Supreme Court in similar cases, justice Ramachandra Rao held that the award passed under the Act 1894 was deemed to have lapsed.

While allowing the petition, the judge directed the authorities to issue a fresh notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and determine the compensation amount and pay it to the petitioner within three months from the date of publication of notification.

Further, he directed the authorities to pay the petitioner ` 5,000 towards costs.