Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 203 (TS)

Kontham Padma v. State of Telangana

2022-03-14

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in releasing the R&R benefits like wages and house site pattas, as provided in G.O.Ms.No.68 I&CAD (PW-LA-IV, R&R) dated 08.04.2005, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.88, I&CAD (PW-LA-IV, R&R) dated 26.08.2010, on par with major sons of Thallapally Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, as arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional, and consequently to direct the respondents to release the R&R benefits like wages for 625 days and also house sites to the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners, who are the major daughters and the residents of Thallapally Vilalge, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, that Thallapally Village has been declared as project affected zone due to the acquisition of the entire village for the purpose of conversion of Srirampur 2 and 2A mines into open cast. That the Notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 04.06.2019. As per the provisions of the Act, the Government has to rehabilitate and resettle the displaced persons by evolving a comprehensive scheme. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 08.04.2005 whereby the policy of the State Government in the matter of resettlement and rehabilitation has been notified. The definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause – 3.10 of the said policy reads as under: “Family means family consisting of such persons as his or her spouse, minor sons, unmarried daughters, minor brothers or unmarried sisters, fathers, mother and other members residing with him and dependant on him for their livelihood.” 3. The said definition underwent amendments by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 13.04.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 26.08.2010. According to G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 13.04.2006, each major son shall be treated as a separate family. By virtue of the amendment made under G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 26.08.2010, a major daughter will also be treated as a separate family on par with a major son. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have acted as per G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 13.04.2006 and have paid the R&R benefits of wages only in favour of the major sons of the village. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have acted as per G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 13.04.2006 and have paid the R&R benefits of wages only in favour of the major sons of the village. That none of the petitioners were paid the R&R benefits on par with the major sons of the village, even though the petitioners have made several representations to the respondents for payment of R&R wages to the major daughters of the village. It is stated that the respondent No.3 has forwarded his remarks dated 29.09.2015 to the respondent No.2 requesting him to take steps for payment of R&R wages to the petitioners on par with the major sons. But, so far no action has been taken thereon. Hence, this writ petition. 5. A counter has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 wherein it is stated that vide reference dated 19.10.2005, the General Manager of respondent No.5 Company has filed requisition for acquisition of Acs.482-22 guntas situated at Tallapally Village, Naspur Mandal, for the purpose of conversion of SRP2 and 2A Mines into open-cast project. As per enjoyment, an extent of Acs.420-39 guntas patta land has come under acquisition. That the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘1894 Act’) was issued vide District Gazette dated 24.09.2007 published on 03.10.2007. Declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued vide District Gazette dated 25.09.2007 and published on 05.10.2007. Out of the total extent of Acs.420.39 guntas, award has been passed for an extent of Acs.375-13 guntas under Section 11(2) of the 1894 Act vide proceedings No.A/2847/2005 of the RDO. That an extent of Acs.60-08 guntas was not covered in the said acquisition due to the lands coming under courtyards lands. Therefore, a fresh notification was issued in respect of Acs.60-08 guntas vide District Gazette dated 04.06.2019. Thereafter, the General Manager of respondent SCCL has filed requisition dated 14.04.2020 for acquisition of 624 structures for the very same public purpose and requested to initiate land acquisition proceedings. Vide G.O. Ms.No.151, dated 12.12.2006, the Government has declared the Villages of Thallapally, Seetharampalli and Teegalapahd and Singapur as affected zones and issued Gazette No.748 dated 16.12.2006. Further, the RDO has directed the Tahsildar to take up Socio Economic Survey of Tallapally Village in terms of R&R policy issued in G.O. Ms.No.68 dated 08.04.2005. Vide G.O. Ms.No.151, dated 12.12.2006, the Government has declared the Villages of Thallapally, Seetharampalli and Teegalapahd and Singapur as affected zones and issued Gazette No.748 dated 16.12.2006. Further, the RDO has directed the Tahsildar to take up Socio Economic Survey of Tallapally Village in terms of R&R policy issued in G.O. Ms.No.68 dated 08.04.2005. Accordingly, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 was approved by the District Collector, Adilabad, vide proceedings dated 15.09.2007 for 624 structures and the same has been published in the District Gazette dated 24.09.2007. Thereafter, draft declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was approved by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 22.09.2007 and the same was published in District Gazette dated 25.09.2007. During the process of acquisition proceedings, Socio Economic survey was conducted and finalized for 799 as project displaced families and for 33 as project affected families of Thallapally Village and the same was approved by the District Collector, Adilabad, vide proceedings dated 01.05.2012 and published in District Gazette No.5-A dated 01.05.2012. Thereafter draft Action plan was prepared for 829 project affected families including majors under R&R package benefits of Thallapalli Village deducting 3 numbers as the structures were identified as cattle sheds and the same was approved by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 04.09.2012, published in District Gazette on 01.05.2012. It is further stated that according to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.68, the benefits of R&R package were taken up and disbursed and the same have become final. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.88 cannot be considered and release of R&R benefits like wages for 625 days and grant of house site patta to each writ petitioner is legally not permissible. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Respondent No.5 SCCL has also filed a separate counter on similar lines as that of the counter filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and specifically stating that the case of the petitioners is covered by notification published vide proceedings dated 15.09.2007, which is prior to G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 26.08.2010 and the respondents have not issued any notification on or after commencement of the G.O.Ms.No.88 for Thallapally Village under R&R package. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits under R&R package under G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 26.08.2010. 7. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefits under R&R package under G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 26.08.2010. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 26.08.2010, has given the benefit of R&R package as enumerated in the policy of the Government for project affected people and project affected families vide G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.04.2005. As per the amendment made to G.O.Ms.No.68 vide G.O.Ms.No.88 in the year 2010 the major daughters are included in the definition of family and they are also eligible for the benefits under the R&R package enumerated in the Act. That the official respondents, having acquired the lands of the family of the petitioners, have given the benefit only to the major sons and not to the major daughters. Learned counsel has stated that the RDO concerned also written a letter to the Collector bringing to the notice that the petitioners are eligible for the R&R benefits and therefore seeks a direction to the official respondents to extend the said benefits to the petitioners and prays the Court to allow the present writ petition and consequently direct the official respondents to pay the R&R benefits. 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 have vehemently opposed the prayer sought for by the petitioners. Learned counsel have stated that the petitioners are not eligible for the R&R benefits and most of them are not dependents and cannot be termed as dependent on the head of the family and were married daughters. That the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.68 is applicable only to the persons who are dependent on the head of the family and also who are majors as on the date of the notification. That whatever benefits due under the G.O. were already given and the petitioners cannot be given at this point of time. Learned counsel have also stated that the award was passed in the year 2008 whereas the amendment was made to G.O.Ms.No.68 in August, 2010 and as such the petitioners are not eligible for the said benefits. Further, it is stated that as per the socio-economic survey conducted by the authorities, the petitioners are not entitled to any R&R benefits. Learned counsel have also stated that the award was passed in the year 2008 whereas the amendment was made to G.O.Ms.No.68 in August, 2010 and as such the petitioners are not eligible for the said benefits. Further, it is stated that as per the socio-economic survey conducted by the authorities, the petitioners are not entitled to any R&R benefits. Learned counsel have also stated that in the socio-economic survey conducted, 799 project displaced families and 33 project affected families of Thallapally Village of Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, were identified and approved by the District Collector vide proceedings No.G3/4564/2007, dated 01.05.2012 and published in the District Gazette No.5-A, dated 01.05.2012. It is further stated that socio-economic survey was conducted by the official respondents prior to the issuance of the notification, Therefore, the application of G.O.Ms.No.68, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.88, is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Hence, they prayed this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. 10. In order to appreciate the case on hand and also decide the issue involved, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of G.O.Ms.No.68. As per the policy of the then State of Andhra Pradesh, G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 08.04.2005, was issued whereby a policy has been formulated for Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2005 for project affected families. The relevant portions of the said G.O.Ms.No.68 are extracted below for better appreciation of the case: 3.10. a) “Family” means Family consisting of such persons as his or her spouse, minor sons, unmarried daughters, minor brothers or unmarried sisters, fathers, mother and other members residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood and each major son residing with such person will be treated as a separate family’. a) “Family” means Family consisting of such persons as his or her spouse, minor sons, unmarried daughters, minor brothers or unmarried sisters, fathers, mother and other members residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood and each major son residing with such person will be treated as a separate family’. 3.16 “Project Affected Family” means (a) a family whose source of livelihood are substantially affected by the process of acquisition of land for the project and who has been residing continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of declaration of the affected zone or practicing any trade, occupation or vocation continuously for a period of not less than three years in the affected zone, preceding the date of declaration of affected zone, regardless of the fact whether they owned land or not. (b) Family whose more than 50% of land is acquired and left over land after acquisition is below Ac.5.0 dry or Ac.2.5 wet or combination of both on above principle. (c) A Project Displaced Family. (d) “any tenure holder, tenant, lessee or owner of other property, who on account of acquisition of land (including plot in the abadi or other property) in the affected area or otherwise, has been involuntarily displaced from such land or other property. 3.17 “Project Displaced Family” means any family, who on account of acquisition of his dwelling house in the village in the affected zone for the purpose of the project, has been displaced from such dwelling house. 11. The said G.O.Ms.No.68 was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 26.08.2010, wherein the definition of ‘family’ has been amended as under : 3.10 (a): “Family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor sons, minor daughters, minor brothers or minor sisters and other members residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood. Further each major son and major daughter residing with such person will be treated as a separate family and the cut off date for calculating their age of 18 years will be the date of notification issued under Section 4(i) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of the village as notified under Para 5.1 of this G.O.” 12. It is also pertinent to note that the said amendment was directed to come into force from the date of the issuance of the said Government Order. It is also pertinent to note that the said amendment was directed to come into force from the date of the issuance of the said Government Order. Admittedly, in the present case, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 24.09.2007 and the publication was made on 02.10.2007. Declaration under Section 6 was done on 25.09.2007 and published on 05.10.2007. Thereafter, the award was passed vide proceedings No.A/2847/2005. That, insofar as the structures are concerned, a total of 624 structures were identified, for which a separate notification under Section 4(1) was approved on 15.09.2007 and the same was published on 24.09.2007. The declaration under Section 6 was made on 22.09.2007 and published on 25.09.2007. Thereafter award was passed on 07.03.2008. Even though the respondents have stated in their counter that the socio-economic survey was conducted prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) and nearly 799 project displaced families and 33 project affected families were identified and as per the said survey, the petitioners are not eligible for the same, it is pertinent to note that the RDO vide letter, dated 29.09.2015, has recommended the names of the persons, mentioned in the list enclosed along with the letter dated 29.09.2015, for R&R benefits. The relevant portion of the letter dated 29.09.2015 is extracted below: “In this instant case the 4(1) Notification has been issued on 15.09.2007 and R&R wages has been paid as per the guidelines in force atg that time. But at present the Tallapalli villagers are representing that they have not been displaced from the village till today as such their major daughters are eligible for payment of R&R wages as per G.O.Ms.No.88 (Project Wing-LA-IV R&R) Department, dated 26.08.2010. In this regard it is to further submit that as per the Social Economic Survey total (44) major daughters were covered who are major as on the date of 4(1) Notification i.e., 15.09.2007, since the villagers are making frequent representation the matter may be brought to the notice of the government for payment of R&R wages to the Major Daughters of Tallapalli village of Mancherial Mandal.” 13. The definition of ‘family’ as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.68 is not absolute but also the same is modified. A person, who is eligible for any benefit under the R&R package, shall not only reside with the land loser but also be dependant on him. The definition of ‘family’ as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.68 is not absolute but also the same is modified. A person, who is eligible for any benefit under the R&R package, shall not only reside with the land loser but also be dependant on him. Further, they should be a major as on the date of notification under Section 4(1). Admittedly, notification under section 4(1), insofar as the lands was approved on 03.10.2007 and for the structures on 24.09.2007. Once the amendment of G.O.Ms.No.68 has been made by the Government extending the benefit of R&R package to the major daughters also, the official respondents are obligated to conduct a survey so as to identify the persons who are eligible as per the definition of ‘family’ for the purpose of extending the benefits to the major daughter. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the benefits of R&R package have been extended to the sons but not to the daughters. Once the benefit is extended to the sons, there cannot be any discrimination towards the daughters and they cannot be denied the benefits, which were extended to the major sons also. The benefits of the amendment to the definition of ‘family’ whereby the major daughters who are residing, dependent and have become major as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), have to be necessarily extended to them and they cannot be discriminated with that of the major sons. 14. The contention of the official respondents that once the socio-economic survey has been conducted identifying the project displaced families and project affected families and the benefits given to the sons has become final and that the petitioners cannot get the benefit of the amended G.O., is without any legal substance and cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the same is contrary to the definition of ‘family’ as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.68 as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.88 and is liable to be rejected. The official respondents cannot refuse to extend the said benefit on the ground that the socioeconomic survey has already been conducted. Once the Government has extended the benefits of R&R package to the major daughters vide G.O.Ms.No.88, the said benefit has to be given to the major daughters also. 15. For the afore-stated reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The official respondents are directed to conduct a survey and identify the daughters whose parents’ lands/structures were affected in the project. Once the Government has extended the benefits of R&R package to the major daughters vide G.O.Ms.No.88, the said benefit has to be given to the major daughters also. 15. For the afore-stated reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The official respondents are directed to conduct a survey and identify the daughters whose parents’ lands/structures were affected in the project. It is needless to observe that the parameters for extending the benefit for the daughter should be that she should be a major as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), that she should be dependent on the head of the family and should be residing in that family as on the date of notification. After identification of the daughters, who meet the above criterion, the authorities concerned are directed to see that the benefits of the package, which have been extended to the sons in the project affected families and project displaced persons, are also to be extended to the major daughters on par with the major sons, as per the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 26.08.2010. The entire exercise of conducting survey and extending the benefits shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.