Deprivation Of Land Traumatic For Indian Farmer, More So, When Lawful Compensation, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Not Ensured At Earliest': Telangana HC [Read Judgment]

For an Indian farmer, deprivation of agricultural land is traumatic, more so, when compensation as per the Law of the land is not paid at the earliest and proper Resettlement and Rehabilitation, as per law, is not done", observed the Telangana High Court on Wednesday. The State of Telangana had initiated the Kaleswaram Irrigation Project under which it proposed to construct many reservoirs down stream. The lands of the petitioners before the Court, who are small farmers owning small extents of land and eking out their livelihood doing agriculture, were acquired by the State/respondents for purpose of Ananthagiri Sagar reservoir, which is also a component of the Kaleswaram irrigation project. The issues raised relate to (a) payment of lawful compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners for depriving them of their agricultural lands and structures thereon and (b) also of compensation in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Section 31-A introduced in the Act by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016.The bench was alive to the fact that the water from these reservoirs (from the river Godavari) would be supplied and utilised in more than 10 districts for agriculture purpose, besides covering the supply of drinking water to the State Capital of Hyderabad. "It is a prestigious project undoubtedly conceived in public interest", the Court had stated.However, it proceeded to observed that "Admittedly, there is unequal bargaining power between the State actors such as the respondents and the petitioners, who are small farmers". It noted that in the instant cases too, "the petitioners were given no choice or rather no meaningful choice, in view of their unequal bargaining power with the respondents, but to give their assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form though it was unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable". Accordingly, the bench declared that the agreements/consent awards entered into by the petitioners with the State are vitiated by coercion, that they are unconscionable and consequently unenforceable invoking Sec. 19 and 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court also held that the action of the State is also violative of Art.14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Taking their respective dates of dispossession as the date of Sec.11 (1) notification (issued in July, 2015), the bench ruled that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation as if their lands had been acquired under the new LA Act of 2013. Requiring such compensation to be paid within 3 months, the bench also ordered the state to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to each of the petitioners. "We hold that the petitioners are entitled to not only (market value) compensation for their lands in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 but also to the lump sum amounts towards Rehabilitation and Resettlement as per Sec.31A", the Court announced. 'Sec.31 A makes even land owners deprived of their lands by the State for irrigation projects (despite section 10A(1)(b) allowing exemption by the government in respect of such projects in public interest) entitled to a lump sum amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement, which is not to be at variance to the disadvantage of the affected families', concluded the bench. The Court opined that even after the deletion of the words "equivalent costs required for rehabilitation and resettlement of willing land owners and others" from the July, 2015 notification by a subsequent Government Order, the said GO would still be overridden by the non-obstante clause in Sec.31A, and make the petitioners entitled to the said amounts.The Court further directed that amounts already paid to petitioners shall not be recovered by the respondents and shall be adjusted by the State towards the compensation found payable to the petitioners after such compensation for land is determined strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Act of 2013."Not a single agreement or sale deed or other material said to have been signed by the petitioners with requisitioning department is filed by the respondents to support this plea as to how they gave their willingness to sell their land to the State and to accept what was offered to them by the respondents or how the compensation/price for petitioners' lands' was arrived at. The respondents have also not filed before the Court the minutes of the meetings of the District Level Land Procurement Committee to show how it had arrived at the price/consideration to be offered to the petitioners for purchasing their land. No record pertaining to the Registration department showing the market value as on the date of dispossession of the petitioners is filed by the respondents though the consideration is supposed to be fixed...

Deprivation Of Land Traumatic For Indian Farmer, More So, When Lawful Compensation, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Not Ensured At Earliest': Telangana HC [Read Judgment]

MEHAL JAIN

Tags