HYDERABAD: Making it clear that the High Court has limited powers with regard to determining the amount of compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, Justice A Ramalingeswara Rao suggested the aggrieved parties concerned to approach the appropriate forum or court on the issue of enhancing the compensation amount under Section 54 of the Act.The Judge made this observation recently while disposing off the petitions filed separately by the ministry of defence and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), challenging the order of the lower court enhancing the compensation amount for lands acquired for DRDO to establish research facilities and security strip around the boundaries of Defence Research and Development Laboratory.
In 2004, the DRDO sent a requisition for acquisition of lands to an extent of 4,500 acres in various villages of Ranga Reddy district. Accordingly, a notification was issued by authorities in 2006. In 2008, the land acquisition officer passed orders awarding a compensation of `600 per square yard for the lands under acquisition. Not satisfied with the said award, the land owners moved the civil court for enhanced compensation. In February this year, the civil court, in a petition, ordered enhancing the compensation from `600 to `1,250 per square yard, and in another petition, hiked it from `600 to `4,000.
Aggrieved with the same, the Centre and the DRDO approached the HC with a plea to set aside the order of lower court.The petitioners’ counsel pointed out that in the absence of any notice to the requisitioning authority and to them, the orders of the lower court are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the counsel for land owners submitted that the DRDL has failed to take any steps though intimation was given by the Land Acquisition officer to it in April 2014, and hence judgments of the civil court are valid.
After hearing both the sides, the judge felt to dispose of these petitions on the issue of maintainability and availability of alternative remedy. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution were circumscribed by the grounds of judicial review and a regular appeal under Section 54 of the Act would better serve the purpose of the petitioners, the judge opined.Justice Ramalingeswara Rao disposed off the petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Act.