Hyderabad: Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the Khammam district collector to constitute a committee of experts to revalue 109 sandalwood trees of land given for the Devarapally section of the under-construction national highway in Khamman district.
The judge made the interim order in a writ petition filed by Vasireddy Appa Rao challenging compensation given without conducting a proper valuation of the red sandalwood and sandalwood trees on 11 acres. The petitioner had been using the land for growing certain crops.
The red sandalwood and sandalwood trees were five years old when the petitioner had purchased the land. In 2020, the Centre had proposed to acquire land for laying a four-lane road from Khammam to Devarapally. About two acres of the petitioner land was acquired by a notification at the instance of the Central government in November 2020.
The competent authority, land acquisition (CALA), deposited money to the accounts of the petitioner who objected to the arbitrary action and requested information regarding the determination of compensation amount and the award proceedings. According to the petitioner, the objections raised in representations were not disposed of by the land acquisition authorities. He said it was evident that the government had no knowledge about the procedure to be followed for determining the amount of land acquisition compensation for red sandalwood and sandalwood trees.
When the authorities proceeded to chop the trees, he moved the High Court which condemned the action of the respondents in chopping and damaging the red sandalwood trees in the petitioner’s land without determining and paying adequate compensation and to have a valuation of the trees. In her 35-page verdict Justice Nanda said that where the landowner is not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation under the National Highway Act, the CALA must refer the matter for arbitration. In the instant case the respondents had not followed any procedure for the valuation of the price, which would make it impossible for the authorities or arbitrator to arrive at a fair valuation.
The judge said “This court opines that admittedly the procedure as mandated under the National Highways Act, 1956 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been followed in the present case,” and added, “This court opines that since hearing of objections to the process of acquisition is a valuable right, an objector is entitled to communication of an order passed by the competent authority rejecting his objections and the reasons recorded therefore.”
The judge made it clear that until the action as directed was carried out the authorities shall not interfere with the red sanders and sandalwood trees on the petitioner's land measuring 11 acres and 27 guntas.
Markfed told to pay ex-staffer interest
Hyderabad: Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court directed the State Cooperative Marketing Federation to pay its retired district manager interest on delayed payment of gratuity from the date of retirement till the date of payment, preferably within a period of two months.
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by C.P. Surender Rao, a retired district manager of AP Markfed, questioning the action of respondents in withholding petitioners’ retirement benefits, i.e., gratuity, encashment of leave, two annual Increments, stagnated increment and reimbursement of travel allowance bills for a sum of Rs 15,000, without any authority of law, as illegal. During his employment, he was charged with misappropriating a sum of Rs 3.43 lakh.
After a detailed enquiry, the special cadre deputy registrar held that the allegation against the petitioner was not proven and the same became final. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the joint registrar has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs 3,43,869.42 vide order dated 26.12.2000. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on 30.06.2002 and, as on date of his retirement, neither any disciplinary proceedings were pending nor any chargesheet was issued to him. Despite the same, the respondent withheld the retirement benefits without any authority of law.
On a detailed analysis of the law in issue, Justice Pulla Karthik observed that the respondent had withheld the gratuity without any fault of the petitioner even though he has retired from service. The only ground taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit for the delay in the payment of gratuity was the pendency of petition filed by the respondent-federation, which had nothing to do with the payment of the same as there were no interim orders in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the judge allowed the writ petition and directed to pay the interest, in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the delayed payment of gratuity.