WP/34287/2023 of Potluri Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed [with ][the ][following prayer]

"Issue of uit of mandamus to declare [tte]action of respondents, [in ][partia ][ar ][respondent ][No.2]herein, in not taking steps [to register ][the ][less area ][of]85 sqttare gards of land [or register ][70O ][square ][gards](the excess of 15 yards) tuill be [paid ]bg [the ][petitioner]accord.ing to the [preuaiting ]market [ualue ]for [uiability ][of]land. as against [1 ][185 ]square [yards ][of ][land ][allotted ][to]the petitic:ner, [uide ][proceedings ][dated ][1O.O7.2O17, ][as]being itlegal, arbitrary and [uiolotiue ][of ][Articles 14, ][21]and 3OO-A of the Constitution [of ][Indio."]

2. Heard learned Counsel for [petitioner ][through ][hybrid]mode, learncd Government [Pleader for ]MunicipalAdministration & Urban [Development appearing ][for ][respondent]No. 1, Smt. D. Maclhavi, [learned Standing Counsel appearing ][on]behalf of respondent [No.2 ][and rvith the ][consent ][of ][the ][learned]Counsel appearing for the [parties, the ][Writ ][Petition ][is ][taken up]for hearing and drspostrl ilt [thc ][stage ][of ][admission.]

3. Petitioner contends tl.rat [he ][was ][the ][absolute owner ][and]pattedar of agricultural lancl [admeasuring ][Ac. ][1.39 ][gts. ][in ][sy']No.551 situated at [Uppat ][Bl-rgagayat ][village, ][Uppal ][Mandal,]

Ranga Reddy District; that the respondent authorities hadacquired the aforesaid land of the petitioner for developing thesame into a lay out; and that the respondent No.2 byproceedings dated 1O.O7.2O17 allotted petitioner a reconstituteddeveloped plot admeasuring I 185 square yards in lieu ofsame into a lay out; and that the respondent No.2 byproceedings dated 1O.O7.2O17 allotted petitioner a reconstituteddeveloped plot admeasuring I 185 square yards in lieu ofmonetaqr compensation payable for acquiring the land of thepetitioner to an extent of Ac. I .39 gts.petitioner to an extent of Ac. I .39 gts.

4. Petitioner further contends that in pursuance of theaforesaid proceedings issued, the respondent No.2 hadconducted a lottery for allotment of plots on O2.O4.2017 whereatthe petitioner was allotted three plots bearing plot No.1350,1289 and 1290 admeasuring 5OO, 3O0 and 3OO square yardsrespectively in the Iay out developed by the respondent No.2

5. Petitioner further contends thal on being allotted with theaforesaid three plots, balance land to extent of 85 square yardswas required to be allotted to the petitioner; that the petitionerhad made a representation to the respondent au[horities on27.O2.2O2O and 16.11.202 1 catling upon thc rcspondenL No.2 toallot the remaining extent of 85 squarc 1'ards; and that inspiteof submitting the aforesaid reprcscntation, no action is taken.

6. Petitioner further contends that \.hile the respondentswere required to allot the remaining cxtent of 85 square yards in his favour, the petitioner is willing to make pqrment at themarket rate for another I 5 square yards in order to make theplot into 1O0 square yards.

7. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 is frled.Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondentNo.2 submits that the respondent authorities had acquired theland for Moosi River Conservalion and River Front Developmentat Uppal Bhagayat village and thar the petitioner was entitled toallotment of 1 185 square yards of developed plot in lieu of landof Ac. 1.39 gts acquired from him.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that therespondent authorities had undertaken the aforesaidacquisition under G.O.Ms. No.36 M.A& U.D department dated22.01.2011 as amendcd, uide G.O.Ms. No.39 M.A&U.D (11)department dated 16.02.20 17 and in order to make allotment,the authorities have also formulated modalities for allotment ofplots under 600 square -vards per onc acre of land in iieu of theIands acquired in Uppal Bhagzryat/ Ramantapur viilge.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as permodalities worked out b). the respondent lor allotment ofdeveloped plots in favour o[ the allottees, the petitioner wasallotted three plots out ol the cntitlement extent of 1185 square yards and thereafter 85 square yards was left out as remainingarea to be allotted. Learned Standing Counsel further submitsthat, since the remaining extent of land was less than theminimum plot size laid in the lay-out as per Clause 4 of themodalities of allotment, the awardee was entitled to receive themonetary compensation at the sum calculated as per the ratefxed under the allotment procedure.

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, since thepetitioner did not express his readiness to purchase theadditional extent of land of the minimum size of the plot of 150square yards at the relevant point of time of allotment by payingthe money, the petitioner cannot now ask for being allorted aptot of 1OO square yards by addition of 15 square yards.

I 1. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that, since thepetitioner did not offer to purchase the plot having minimumsize of 15O square yards to the relevant point of time, thepetitioner is only entitled to claim monetary compensation inrespect of the remaining extent of land of 85 square yards; thatthe land in the lay out was sold at Rs. i7,OOO/ - per squarc -vard;and thus, the petitioner would be entitled to receivc monetarycompensation of Rs.14,45,OO0/- in respect ol the re mainingextent of land of 85 square yards.

-

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions [urged.]

13. Firstly, though the [petitioner ]claims that he [is willing ]topay for 15 square yards to make it a [plot ]size of [I ]OO squareyards, it is to be seen that the lay out developed by therespondent No.2 authority the minimum extent of [plot ]size [was]of 150 square yards. Secondly, it is [also ]not [shown ]to [this]Court of the petitioner expressing his readiness at any [time]prior to filing of this Writ Petition, more particularly [when ]theallotment process was in progress of approaching [the]respondent No.2 authorities cxpressing his readiness topurchase the plot having minimum size of l50 square [yards ]bypaying the market price at which the plots were sold to othersfor the balance extent of the land of 65 square [yards ]over [and]above his remaining entitlement ol land to an [extent ]of [85]square yards. Even the prayer in the [prescnt ]Writ [Petition ][is]only for allotment of plot of 100 square [yards ]by cxpressing [his]readiness to pay for the 15 square yards and not 65 squareyards in total. Thus, the claim of the petitiorter in the presentWrit Petition expressing his readincss to purchase the plot of10O square yards in the lay out u,herein there cxists no ptot ofsize of lOO square yards in the consrdered view of this Courtcannot be accepted inasmuch as br':rcccpting such a request by issuing a direction would result in the entire lay out developedin a planned manner getting disturbed.in a planned manner getting disturbed.

14. Further, since the petitioner had failed to show to thisCourt of approaching the respondent authorities expressing hisreadiness to purchase the bigger extent of plot of 150 squareyards at the relevalt point when allotments were made, thisCourt is of the view that the petitioner cannot now make suchoffer to purchase, as the respondent authorities contendecl tohave sold all the plots in the entire lay out to intendingpurchasers. Thus, the petitioner is only entitted to claimmonetary compensation in terms of Clause 4 of the modalitiesarrived at for implementing the scheme under G.O.Ms. No.36and 39 MA & UD Department.

15. Since the respondents by their counter affidavit havccxprcssed their readiness to pay the compensation to thcpetitioner for the remaining extent of land of g5 squarc yards ofentitlement at the rate which the land was allotted in favour olthe intending purchasers at the relevant point of time, it is opcnfor the petitioner to approach the respondent authorirics toclaim the aforesaid monetary compensation in respect of thccxtent of the excess land.

-,

16. Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition isdisposed of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if anyshall stand closed.shall stand closed.

SD/. K.SAI [KUMARI]ASSISTANT(rE9ErRAR//TRUE [COPY//]\/SECTION [OFFICER]

To,a nd u [rba ][n ][D ][e ][ve ][I ][o p ][me ][nt']' U:':Uliitilio"Sl:[?]]: [3l:[:%?i$iru:,i'j:"' ][" ][" ]

,;l""lt.,ttrB,j"Jr,"J5:,#f;',i,??1x;:'3t#rtanDeveropmentAuthoritv'

3. One [CC ][to SRI N'R'BHAGAVAN' Advocate ][[OPUC]]

4. One [CC ][to SMT D'MADHAVI' ][SC ][FOR HMDA ][[OPUCI]

URBAN [DEV' Hish ][court ][ror ][the ][state ][or]rl lJgffi:"":,!r[35Jg3?"t,ffi.- lJgffi:"":,!r[35Jg3?"t,ffi.-

6. Two [CD CoPies]

BSR

GJ4rsx

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2911212023

ORDERWP.No.34287 ot 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS

C\N1-\r)2I--

1[FE ][STA][ 14.]qcL]0 1 [FEB ][2024](ij,),a--