AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner before this Court, who is a widow, has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation in acquiring the land of the petitioner for the construction of road and not paying a single rupee in the matter.
The contention of the petitioner is that the Government of India took a policy decision to provide shelter to industrial workers and weaker sections of the society and a scheme was introduced i.e., Integrated Subsidized Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections of Community. As per the scheme, the State Government has authorised the Labour Department to allot plots to economically weaker members of the community and a lease – cum – sale agreement was executed on 26.12.1992 allotting one room quarter i.e., SRT 94 admeasuring 150 square yards to the petitioner. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed on 01.03.2000.
The petitioner also paid Rs.4,411.36. The petitioner, a widow, was residing peacefully in the house. The Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, all of a sudden evicted the petitioner from the house and took possession of 76 square yards of the land for the purpose of widening the road and the petitioner kept on representing in the matter for award of compensation or for award of alternative house/plot. As nothing was done in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is an undisputed fact that not a single rupee was paid to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation.
The respondent No.4 – Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, has filed a counter affidavit and in a paragraph 2 therein, the respondent No.4 has stated that she is not aware about the so-called sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and it has been stated that there was initially 60 feet road in existence prior to 1974 and in the Nizamabad Town Planning Scheme (Master Plan 1974) the existence of 60 feet wide road has been shown and without approval, it was shown as 30 feet road by the Director of Town and Country Planning and it is, in fact, a 60 feet road. Therefore, widening of the road has taken place in the matter and the sale deed does not give any right to the petitioner over the subject land.
A detailed and an exhaustive reply has been filed by the State/Labour Department and it has been admitted that the land was sold to the petitioner by executing a sale deed and the land was allocated for the purpose of providing houses to the members of the weaker sections of the society/industrial workers and the land was demarcated by the revenue authorities, which was eventually sold to the petitioner and other persons also. It has also been admitted that no compensation has been paid to the petitioner, even though she has lost substantial portion of the land. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour has also stated that various letters were written to the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation to award compensation. However, no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner and finally the Commissioner of Labour has requested the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation to inform whether compensation has been paid to the petitioner or not and he has also recommended vide letter dated 05.05.2003 to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, though has supported the claim of the petitioner, but in the last paragraph has stated that now the Department of Labour has got no concern with the loss of land to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the respondents have shifted their burden upon each other in the matter of payment of compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The facts of the case reveal that under the Integrated Subsidized Housing Scheme for industrial workers and economically weaker sections of community, who were downtrodden people of the society, based upon the policy of the Government of India, the State Government, through the Commissioner of Labour, after allocation of land by the revenue authorities, has executed the lease – cum – sale agreement on 26.12.1992 in favour of the petitioner and finally a sale deed was executed on 01.03.2000. It is also an admitted fact that for the purpose of widening of the road, 76 square yards, out of 150 square yards sold to the petitioner, has been taken away by the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation. It is unfortunate that the Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, instead of verifying the factum of execution of sale deed has adopted a very insensitive approach while filing reply by stating that the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation is not aware about the sale deed nor is aware of the lease – cum – sale agreement. Nothing prevented the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation to verify the facts from the revenue authorities. In the case of a poor widow, after acquiring her land and after demolishing her house, the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation is not ready to pay any compensation nor the revenue authorities/Department of Labour/State Government is ready to pay any compensation.
The widow before this Court is aged about 72 years, she is running from pillar to post and it is nobody’s case that no sale deed was executed in her favour. Therefore, as the land has been taken away by the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, it is the duty of the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation to pay the compensation to the widow in respect of the land which has been taken away from her.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation is directed to pay the compensation by taking into account the provisions as contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to the petitioner and the compensation shall be paid positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.