The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act crystallizes only after resolving disputes regarding apportionment. This ruling clarifies that a claimant’s right to compensation is legally established only when a competent court rules in their favor on apportionment matters.
The High Court referred to a 2024 writ petition, which cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madan & Another v. State of Maharashtra (2014). The Supreme Court held:
"The right to receive compensation under the award crystallizes only after apportionment is decided in favor of a claimant."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that only after this stage can a claimant seek enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act.
Case Analysis and Court Observations
Justice T. Vinod Kumar, in his order, reinforced that the entitlement to compensation materializes when a court adjudicates the reference under Section 30 of the Act, determining the rightful recipient.
Section 30 states that when compensation is determined under Section 11, any dispute over its apportionment or rightful recipient is referred by the Collector to a competent court.
In the present case, a dispute arose regarding the rightful claimant of compensation for 12.23 acres of land acquired under a 2001 notification for the Suddavagu Project (Right Flank). The District Collector, recognizing the conflicting claims, referred the matter to the court under Section 30.
Read Also:- Unfair Toll Collection on Poorly Maintained Highways: J&K High Court Orders 80% Reduction in Toll Fees
The reference was recorded as O.P. No. 74 of 2003, and the trial court, in a 2013 ruling, confirmed that the petitioner was the legal representative entitled to the compensation.
Key Court Findings and Distinction Between Sections 18 and 30
- Apportionment Comes First: The court ruled that only after the apportionment issue is settled does a claimant gain a definitive right to compensation.
- Timing for Compensation Enhancement: The petitioner could seek higher compensation only after the apportionment dispute was resolved.
- Supreme Court’s Stand: The judgment referenced Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, reinforcing that Sections 18 and 30 serve different legal purposes and must be treated separately.
"Section 18 deals with objections to measurement, compensation amount, recipients, and apportionment. Section 30 is limited to disputes over apportionment and rightful ownership."
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s late husband owned agricultural land in Bhainsa Village, Nirmal District. A 12.23-acre portion was acquired in 2002 under the Land Acquisition Act for the Suddavagu Project. However, competing claims over ownership led the District Collector to refer the case to the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court: Only Sessions Court Can Try Offences Under Chapter IV of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act
The trial court ruled in 2013 that the petitioner was the rightful heir entitled to compensation. Consequently, she applied under Section 18 for enhanced compensation.
Dispute Over Compensation Claim Timing
The government’s counsel argued that Section 18 applications must be filed within 60 days of the award. Since the original award was passed in 2002, they contended that the 2013 application was time-barred.
However, the court clarified that since the apportionment dispute was settled only in 2013, the petitioner’s compensation claim was well within time.
"The petitioner’s entitlement to compensation crystallized on February 11, 2013. Therefore, her Section 18 application filed on March 15, 2013, was valid."
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, instructing the District Collector to refer her Section 18 application to the competent court within six weeks.
Case title: Rizvana Begum W/o M.A.Quadeer VS. The Principal Secretary
Counsel for petitioner: Qazi Syed
Counsel for respondent: GP for acquisitions.
