THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2003 Dated: 30.11.2010 Between: The Singareni Collieries Co., Limited., rep.,by its Chairman & Managing Director, Lakdikapool. ..Appellant Vs. 1. Someni Devaiah and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2003 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal is filed by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8905 of 2001, dated 17.4.2003. The unofficial respondents herein are the petitioners in the writ petition. All the writ petitioners except petitioner No.8 therein are the Tribals and residents of Tiryani and Bordam village of Tiryani Mandal, Adilabad District and they filed the writ petition challenging the notification No.9/2001 dated 13.3.2001 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and also the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by notification No.9/2001-02, dated 14.3.2001, under which, the lands to an extent of Ac.96.14 guntas of Bordam and Pedakunta village were sought to be acquired for the purpose of Kairguda Opencast Project of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 13.3.2001 and 14.3.2001 respectively. The main grievance of the writ petitioners appears to be that the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 18.4.1990 have not been followed for acquiring the lands in question by providing rehabilitation measures to the affected tribal families. Apart from that, the notification has not been published in the newspapers in the regional language of the locality. However, it was effected so. Therefore, the tribals can insist for rehabilitation measures by invoking G.O.Ms.No.64. The learned single Judge after taking into account the guidelines as enunciated by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 18.4.1990 and also the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.8476 of 2001, quashed the notifications impugned in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, Singareni Collories filed the present writ appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Singareni Collieries Company Limited and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the material available on record. While admitting the writ appeal on 28.8.2003, this Court stayed the operation of the order of the learned single Judge and directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on 28.8.2003 as regards possession of the property, while granting liberty to the official respondents to proceed with all further proceedings in the matter except dispossession of the writ petitioners from the lands in question. Subsequently, the appellant-Singareni Collieries Company filed WAMP NO.1548 of 2004 seeking a direction to deliver possession of the lands in question to it. On that, this Court on 30.4.2004 passed the orders as follows: “In the circumstances, the appellant as well as respondents 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 are directed to expedite the process of purchase of the land since the lands have already been selected by the tribals for themselves. The process in this regard shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order to further rehabilitate the tribals in terms of G.O.Ms.No.64 S.W.(T) dated 18.4.1990, which shall put into motion so as to accommodate all the writ petitioners and so that the rehabilitation package is effectively to be completed within a period of four months from 30.4.2004. In the light of the undertaking given by the appellant company herein and the proceedings dated 14.3.2004 and in the light of the fact that the writ petitioners are no more in possession of the land, the interim order granted on 28.8.2003 is modified enabling the appellant-company to proceed further so that it can resume its legitimate activity of mining. However, such taking of possession and its mining operations are subject to the conditions incorporated in the order referred to hereinabove and such further directions that may be issued by this Court from time to time.” This Court was conscious of the fact while modifying the interim Order on 30.4.2004 that for opening of Khairguda Open Cast Project, nearly Ac.830-00 of land is to be acquired and the appellant-Company had already taken possession of Ac.150.00 cents of Government land out of which Ac.93.00 are the Government assigned lands and that insofar as Ac.346-00 of land pertaining to the Forest authorities is concerned, the forest authorities are about to formally handover the possession after taking possession of the trees found in the land by making necessary operations of felling the trees as per the provisions of the Forest Act and that the controversy surrounds around the patta land of Ac.186.00 out of which nearly Ac.90.00 of land has already been taken possession by the appellant-company. In WAMP No.1548 of 2004, the appellant-company categorically stated that it is bound and earnestly interested in complying with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 18.4.1990, which deals with the rehabilitation package. Now, it is represented that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WAMP No.1548 of 2004, dated 30.4.2004 the rehabilitation package has been complied with and all the writ petitioners have been rehabilitated in terms of G.O.Ms.No.64 S.W(T) Department dated 18.4.1990 and possession of the land in question was also taken and mining operations are going on. The learned Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners submitted that in view of the compliance of rehabilitation package, no cause survives for adjudication to quash the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 13.3.2001 and 14.3.2001 respectively. In view of the above submissions, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge in WP No.8905 of 2001, dated 17.4.2003. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy _______________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad Date: 30.11.2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2003 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Dated: 30.11.2010