Telangana High Court
WP/32333/2012 of Syed Abdul Rahman, Sycd Farook Abdur Rahman, Vs Special Deputy Collector, on 28 December 2012
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.32333 of 2012 Date : 28-12-2012 Between: Syed Abdul Rahman @ Syed Farook Abdur Rahman and others .. Petitioners And Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Ms. Nargis Afshan Khan Counsel
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.32333 of 2012
Date : 28-12-2012
Between:
Syed Abdul Rahman @ Syed FarookPetitioners Abdur Rahman and others ..
And
Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad
and another ..
Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Ms. Nargis Afshan KhanCounsel for respondent No.1: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2 : None appeared The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declarethe inaction of the respondents in paying compensation inrespect of Ac.0-06 guntas and 111 sq. yards of land inSy.No.305/1/A, Kandikal village, Charminar, Hyderabad, orin the alternative, in denotifying the said lands, as illegal andarbitrary.
I have heard Ms. Nargis Afshan Khan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The petitioners pleaded that an extent of Ac.11-06guntas and 111 sq. yards belonging to them was acquiredunder notification dated 27-9-1984 issued underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "theAct"); that the award was passed on 16-9-1987, and thatpossession of the said lands was taken on 18-9-1987. Thepetitioners further pleaded that in the said award, it isspecifically mentioned that a separate award for thestructures and well will be passed. Accordingly, on 20-5-2005, a supplementary award was passed for the well andother structures. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that no award was passed in respect of the said Ac.0-06guntas and 111 sq. yards.
In my opinion, the petitioners failed to pursue theappropriate remedy at the appropriate time. If an award waspassed for less extent of land than what was actuallyacquired, it was open to the petitioners to seek reference ofthe dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 18(1)of the Act. One of the objections on which such referencecould be asked for by the land owner under the saidprovision is with respect to the measurement of the land. The petitioners ought to have sought for such reference atleast after the supplementary award was passed on 20-9-2005, if not earlier. Having kept quiet for morethan seven years after passing of the supplementary award,the petitioners cannot be permitted to approach this Courtby way of the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition istherefore liable to be dismissed not only on the ground thatthe petitioners failed to avail the remedy available to themunder Section 18(1) of the Act, but also that the Writ Petitionsuffers from unexplained and uncondonable laches.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition isdismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP No.41215 of 2012 is disposed ofas infructuous.
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 28-12-2012
AM