Land Acquisition Law | The right to receive compensation crystallizes only after the dispute on the dispute on the distribution is decided: Telangana HC

The Superior Court of Telangana has to receive compensation under the Land Acquisition Law would cry rival rules in the claimant. favor.

The Superior Court referred to the Court’s decision in a 2024 deed request in which it had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Madan and another v/ s. State of Maharashtra (2014) in which the Apex court had said that “The right to receive compensation under the crystallization award after the distribution is made in favor of a claimant“. The Supreme Court had also said that it is only after a reference under section 18 for better compensation can be legitimately requested by the claimant in whose favor the distribution order is advanced by the court in the reference under section 30 of In in in the civil suit, as perhaps.

Justice t vinod kumar In his order, he pointed out that the Superior Court had in the 2024 deed request argued that “The right to receive compensation would crystallize only when the court to which a reference is made under section 30 of the law that determines the right of the petitioner”

Section 30 establishes that when the amount of compensation has been established under section 11, if any dispute arises in terms of the distribution of the same or any part of it, or as to the people to whom the same or any Part, is paid, the collector can send said dispute to the Court’s decision.

Regarding the case before him, said the Superior Court “,”In the facts of the present case, although an award was approved with respect to the acquired land of the Petitioner’s husband to a point of ACS.12.23 Guntas under the DT awards procedures. 08.01.2001, the district collector by noticing the existence of dispute over whether it is the husband of the petitioner who has the right to receive compensation or the other plaintiffs, who had filed the rival claim of the aforementioned measure of the land that had referred to the Subject to court to resolve the dispute. After the collector of the district that refers to the Court under section 30 of the law, this reference was numbered as OPNO.74 of 2003. The Court had subsequently decided the dispute over the distribution of the Earth and argued that the rival claims the Earth subject to the land subject to others cannot be accepted. “

“It is only when the competent court had approved an order that judged the rival claims, it can be said that the rights of the parties have been crystallized. Therefore, it is only 11.02.2013, the petitioner in this document is the legal representative is the legal representative of the fifth defendant: the claimant in the prize has the right to receive compensation with respect to the land in a degree of ACS.12.23 guntas belonging to his husband to have acquired and not in any moment before,“The court said.

Section 18 of the Law establishes that any interested person who has not accepted the prize can, by written request to the collector, require that the matter be sent by the collector for the determination of the court, if their objection is the measurement of the earth, The amount of compensation, the people who are paid or the distribution of compensation among interested persons.

Background

The husband of the petitioner owned an agricultural land located in the village of Bhainsa in the old Adilabad district, which is now the Nirmal district. The petitioner said that from the Earth belonging to her husband, the Earth to a extent to which the ACS Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Law.

The authorities of the respondents in accordance with the notification issued under section 4 (1) approved an award in March 2002 with respect to the land and land of their husband owned by others that were affected by sub -emergency.

As there were rival claims, the district collector had made a reference under section 30 before the Court to resolve the dispute over the distribution of land compensation and compensation. After this reference was made, the same was recorded in the archive of the senior civil judge in Nirmal.

The Court of First Instance for its 2013 order argued that the petitioner is the legal representative of the claimant No.5 in the adjudication procedure has the right to receive compensation to the extent of the ACS.23 Guntas outside the acquired land. As the petitioner did not agree with the compensation that was determined under the award, he approached the authorities of the respondents and submitted a request on the search for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Law to improve compensation.

She said that Despite submitting the application after the award of reference under section 30, within the period prescribed under the law, the same has not been sent to the Civil Court to date.

On the other hand, income officials argued that according to section 18, the application must be made within 60 days after the approval of the compensation order. In the present case, the compensation order was approved in 2002, and an improvement application was submitted in 2013.

The bank after listening to both parties, distinguished between section 18 and section 30 of the Law. It clarified that only once the distribution dispute was eliminated, it could enter the issue of compensation value.

“The right of the petitioner to receive compensation has been crystallized only on 11.02.2013 when the ruling and decree in Opno.74 of 2003 are approved. It is only later, the petitioner could have submitted a request to the collector of the district that seeks to the Court under section 18 of the Law regarding the compensation determined under the prize. ”

Trust the decision of the Supreme Court in SHARDA DEVI VS. Bihar state Judgment, he said, “Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the right of the petitioner to receive compensation has been crystallized only on 11.02.2013 when the judgment and decree in Opno is approved.74 of 2003. It is only later, the petitioner could there could be Submitted a request to the collector of the district that seeks reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Law regarding the compensation determined under the prize”

He pointed out that the request of the petitioner seeking The reference to the Court under section 18 was presented within two months as of the date of the notice considered with the date of the court order. Therefore, he said that the petitioner’s supplication was presented on time for the authorities to refer to the Court under section 18.

Elimination of the Court’s declaration ordered that the request of the petitioner be sent to the competent court within six weeks since he received a copy of this order.

Case title: Rizvana Begm without Machadeer vs. The main secretary

Advisor for the petitioner: Qazi Syed

Defendant Advisor: Acquisition GP.

Click here to read/download order