AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not paying the compensation to the
petitioner's society in respect of the land bearing MCH No.6-3-888 and 889, situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, admeasuring 295.11 square yards,
which was acquired for the purpose of road widening from Rajiv Gandhi Junction to Raj Bhavan, as illegal and arbitrary.
It is the case of the petitioner-society that one Mrs.Abidunnissa Begum had gifted the property, admeasuring 1720 square yards of land, bearing No.6-
3-888 and 889, situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, in its favour vide Gift Deed dated 25.01.1983, and since then it is in uninterrupted possession and
enjoyment of the said property. While so, in 2005, the respondent No.3 has deployed his workers for demolition of boundary wall and other structures
of the petitioner's property, without following due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner-society approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13205 of
2005 and this Court had disposed of the said writ petition on 21.06.2005 directing the respondents therein not to demolish the structures in question
without following the guidelines issued by a Division Bench of this Court in P. Lakshman Rao v. Executive Officer 2000 (5) ALT 246. It is stated that
the respondent No.3 has issued a letter dated 30.06.2005 informing the petitioner-society that the respondent - Corporation has agreed to pay
compensation in respect of the acquired land, and that Award would be passed as soon as possible i.e., not later than one month.
It was further agreed that with regard to demolition of the compound wall, the respondent - Corporation would construct a new compound wall and
with regard to the structure affected in the road widening, the value of the same would be paid.
According to the petitioner-society, in view of the request made by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, besides the assurance given by the respondent No.3
that the compensation will be paid not later than one month, the petitioner-society permitted the respondent- Corporation authorities to acquire the
subject land, but till date, the petitioner-society is not known whether the respondent No.4 has passed an Award in respect of the subject premises or
not?
Furthermore, the petitioner-society has received notices vide Nos.BPS/4998 of Circle-IV, and BPS/7129/08 of Circle-IV, dated 08.06.2010
respectively, in respect of other properties of the society. The petitioner - society has addressed a letter requesting the respondent No.2 to pay the
balance compensation amount in respect of the subject premises, after adjusting the amount demanded under BPS Scheme in respect of the buildings
mentioned in the notices dated 08.06.2020. But, so far, no action has been taken thereon.
The Assistant City Planner, Circle-17, Khairatabad, GHMC, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent - Corporation stating that they
have already submitted acquisition proposals to the respondent No.4 to initiate land acquisition proceedings for road widening from Raj Bhavan to
Rajiv Gandhi Junction in order to prepare subdivision records TSLR obtained from the respondent No.5, in which the site details shown as Pr.No.6-3-
888 & 889 of Khairatabad is falling in Ts.No.21, Block B, Ward No.88 and the affected property is under ""set back"" area, as 3 AAR, J W.P.No. 6461
of 2015 such, the acquisition proposals were not moved further, and that in order to make payment of compensation, they have filed an application for
Land Acquisition proceedings. It is further stated that the petitioner sought to adjust compensation amount towards the application made under BPS,
but the same will not be adjusted since BPS applications are made under Charminar Circle which are out of jurisdiction of Circle 17. Furthermore, the
compensation in respect of the subject land may be considered under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act').
Rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the
respondents have acquired the petitioner's land in 2005 without passing an Award and without paying any compensation except constructing
compound wall. According to Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, in the event of not passing the Award before 01.01.2014, all the provisions of the Act, 2013
will apply to the petitioner-society and that Section 30 of the Act mandates that the petitioner-society is entitled to double the market value. It is further
stated that the as per the market value, petitioner-society is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,91,82,150/- in respect of 295.11 square yards, which was
acquired, and after doubling the same, the petitioner-society is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,83,64,300/- together with interest, and therefore,
prayed this Court to direct the official respondents to pay the said compensation amount to it.
Heard Sri B. Mayur Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, the
learned Standing Counsel for G.H.M.C. Perused the record.
Admittedly, the land of the petitioner-Society has been acquired by the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of road widening. A perusal of the
documents filed by the petitioner, particularly the letter issued by the respondent No. 3, dated 30.06.2005, shows that the Assistant City Planner,
MCH, Circle No. 5, had promised to pay the compensation for the land acquired within a period of one month. Basing on the said letter, the petitioner-
Society has handed over the possession of the property to the respondent-Corporation. The letter, dated 30.06.2005 written by the Assistant City
Planner to the petitioner-Society reads as under:-
As the discussion held with Additional Commissioner, M.C.H. (Planning) on 29.06.2005, the M.C.H. agreed to pay the land compensation to the
Islamic Social Service Society, as per the land acquisition procedure and award will be passed as soon as possible i.e. not later than one month.
With regard to the construction of Compound Wall, the M.C.H. will construct the compound wall in lieu of the old wall existing wall. The structures
affected apart from the compound wall which are affecting in road widening, the structure value will be paid for the same.
As promised in the above letter, even though the compound wall was constructed by the respondent-Corporation, but insofar as the compensation
amount is concerned, it is not paid so far. In the letter, dated 22.12.2008, written to the Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, the Special Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition) had stated as under:-
I am to inform you that the Asst. City Planner, Circle- V, MCH has placed requisition for acquisition of the premises No. 6-3-888 & 889 situated at
Somajiguda, Hyderabad affected under road widening from Raj Bhavan to Rajiv Gandhi Junction.
Even in the Form-A, which was signed by various officials of GHMC, including the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Chief City
Planner, the factum of taking over 5 AAR, J W.P.No. 6461 of 2015 possession of the land has been reiterated. Moreover, in the counter filed by the
respondent-Corporation, the officials have neither denied the factum of acquisition nor taking over possession of the subject land. On the other hand,
the specific admissions, at para 5 and 6 in the counter affidavit, read thus:-
5....it is respectfully submitted this office submitted acquisition proposals to the 4th Respondent to initiate land acquisition proceedings for road
widening from Raj Bhavan to Rajiv Gndhi Junction also in order to prepare subdivision records obtained TSLR from the Respondent No. 5 in which
the site details shown as Pr. No. 6-3-888 & 889 of Khairatabad is falling in Ts. No. 21, Block B, Ward No. 88 and the affected property is under ""set
back"" area, as such the acquisition proposals were not moved further...
6....it is respectfully submitted that this Office has agreed to pay the compensation to the petitioners society as per the Land Acquisition procedure and
also assured the Petitioner that award will be passed as soon as possible by invoking provisions under section 146 and 147 of the GHMC Act.
Pursuant to the same, the Assistant City Planner had written to the Special Deputy Collector, Head Office, GHMC in Form-B stating as under:-
It is requested to acquire land as per provisions of Sections 23 and 30-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act No. 30 of 2013) as amended by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Telangana Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 21 of 2017).
Form-A is enclosed exempting the project from the provisions of Chapter II and Chapter III of the Act.
Requisite cost of acquisition including R & R will be deposited in your office as and when required.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, in catena of cases, held that the owners of the land cannot be deprived of their land without
payment of the compensation. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
... Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of ""eminent domain"" may
interfere with the right of property by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefore must be
paid.
(emphasis supplied) In N.Padmamma v. S.Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-
A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.
(emphasis supplied) In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd., v. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 354, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
it is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against
tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property.
Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist"" was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which
must be conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.
In State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to property is now considered to be not
only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to
shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faced dimension.
In view of the above settled legal position and in view of the admitted facts that the official respondents have taken possession of the land of the
petitioner-Society for the purpose of widening of the road and no compensation amount is paid so far, the respondent No. 4 is hereby directed to
initiate the land acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. Further, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with the said authority as soon as the
requisition in that regard is received or the draft Award is approved.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.