Person Whose Land Title Is In Dispute Before Civil Court Can't Seek Withdrawal Of Land Acquisition Proceedings: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that a person, whose title is in dispute, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings.A division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili upheld a single judge order which held that once the title is in dispute and a reference has been made...
The Telangana High Court has held that a person, whose title is in dispute, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings.
A division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili upheld a single judge order which held that once the title is in dispute and a reference has been made to the civil court to determine the ownership, a person, whose title is in dispute, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act.
The facts of the case revealed that the writ petition was preferred by the appellants with the prayer for withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings under Section 48(1) of the in respect of the land.
Section 48 of the Act provides that the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
The said land was acquired for construction of a track for Metro Rail Transport Services and an award was passed in 2003.
There was a dispute in respect of the said land regarding ownership and a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the Act to the civil court to determine the ownership and the entitlement to receive compensation.
In the writ appeal, the Bench did not interfere with the decision of Single Judge in the writ petition. It observed,
"This Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the aforesaid order especially, when the title of the writ petitioners/appellants itself was in dispute and the matter was referred to civil court under Section 30 of the Act. No case for interference is made out in the matter."
The writ petitioners/appellants are at liberty to take recourse to the remedies available under the law after the reference made under Section 30 of the Act is decided, the Court said.
Writ appeal was hence dismissed.
Case Title: ANDELA ESWARAMMA, R.R. DISTRICT v. STATE OF A.P., HYDERABAD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 25