Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that the owner of a land is entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 if the land acquisition officer fails to deposit the compensation amount either before the civil court or pay the landowner, according to the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao gave the ruling while allowing a petition by Ramprakash Agarwal, a resident of Khairatabad, who challenged an award passed by the special deputy collector and land acquisition officer of the city in 1999 to acquire 59.80 sq. yd. for road widening from Dwaraka Hotel to the Visveswaraiah statue at Khairatabad.
The authorities took possession of the land and building but did not pay compensation in view of a dispute pending before a civil court among Mr Agarwal’s family members. The Land Acquisition Act mandates for deposit of compensation before the civil court when a property is in dispute.
According to Mr Agarwal, the property was allotted to him after the settlement in the civil court and he approached the authorities for the compensation. He submitted to the court that when he came to know the facts of the case, he sought information under the RTI Act and approached the High Court.
He contended that since the compensation had not been deposited in a civil court, 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 lands stood invalidated, as more than five years had passed.
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 arguments and perusing the provisions under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act and judgments of the Supreme Court in similar cases, the judge held that the award passed under the 1894 Act was deemed to have lapsed.
The judge directed the authorities to issue fresh notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and determine compensation and pay it to him within a period of three months from the date of publication of notification.
While refusing the claim of the revenue authorities on the ground of not having records, the judge also directed the authorities to pay '5,000 as costs to the petitioner.
