WA/1369/2008 of P.S.K.Chaitanya, s/o. Ramesh Babu Vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Principla Secrtary to on 29 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEand HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT APPEAL No.1369 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orderdated 07-08-2008 in W.P.No.22046 OF 2002 on the file of the HighCourt)

Between:

1 P.S.K. Chaitanya, s/o. Ramesh Babu R/o. Ponnikallu Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District.

2 Smt. Yelamanchili Sudha Vani, w/o.Krishna Mohan R/o. Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3 Smt. Nimagadda Radhika , w/o.N.Banu Prasad, R/o.H.No.40-4- 10, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 10, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4 Smt. Yelamanchili Geeta Sudha, W/o.Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao R/o.H.No.4-25,Enikapadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

5 Smt. Yelamanchili Venkata Jaya Ratna, W/o.Srinivasa Rao R/o.H.No.4-25,Enikapadu,Vijayawada, Krishna District. R/o.H.No.4-25,Enikapadu,Vijayawada, Krishna District.

... APPELLANTS

AND

1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The State of A.P. rep. by its principal Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

4 The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (Industries), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

5 The Vice Cahirman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

6 The Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, 7 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division having its office at Domalguda, Hyderabad.

8 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

9 The Station House Officer, Raidurg Police Station, Raigurg, Ranga

10 The Commissioner, Sherilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. District.

11 Sri.Laxminarayana Pratap Singh s/o. Late Kalyan Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

12 Smt.Laxmi Narayana Indrani Bai W/o.Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

13 Sri laxmi Narayana Shanker Singh, s/o. Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

14 Sri.laxmi Narayana Samrat Singh, S/o. Latge Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

15 Sri.Laxmi Narayana Sunil Singh s/o. Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

16 Smt. Laxmi Narayana Chandar Bai W/o. Late Balaji Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga

17 Kumari.Laxmi Narayana Renuka Bai D/o. Late Balaji Singh represented by their natural mother and guardian Smt.L.Chandar represented by their natural mother and guardian Smt.L.Chandar Bai i.e, Respondent No. 16

18 Kumari.Laxmi Narayana Durga Bai D/o. Late Balaji Singh represented by their natural mother and guardian Smt.L.Chandar Bai i.e, Respondent No. 16

19 Sri.Laxmi Narayana Dhanraj Singh s/o. Late Kalyan Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

Respondents 11 to 19 are rep. by their G.P.A. Holder Sri Laxminarayana Rajan, S/o. Sri Late kalyan Singh, Age40

20 Sri. Amar Singh s/o. Prakash Singh

R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga

21 Sri. Sailender Singh s/o. Prakash singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

22 Sri. Ravinder Singh S/o. Prakash Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

23 Sri. Devender Singh s/o. Prakash singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

24 Sri.L.Ramesh Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

25 Smt. L.Kamala Bai W/o. Ramesh Singh

R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

26 Sri.L.Ranjith Singh s/o. L.Ramesh Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga

27 Sri. L.Ganesh Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy District.

28 Sri.L.Deepak Singh s/o. Late Fathe Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(RR 20 to 28 are Rep. by their General Power Attorney Holder Sri Lakshminarayana Prakash Singh, S/o. Sri Late Fathe Singh Lakshminarayana Prakash Singh, S/o. Sri Late Fathe Singh

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for Appellants: Mr.V. Hariharan

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION

The Court made the following:

Judgment:(Per Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J)

This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed bythe petitioners in W.P.No.22046 of 2002, aggrieved by the order dated 17-08-2008 passed by the learned single Judge.

2. The appellants herein had filed the aforesaid writ petitionseeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 10 in acquiring their plots in Sy.Nos.203/2, 204, 205 and 206/A ofManikonda Jagir Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the notification issuedunder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide notificationNo.G/2349/2001 and also the declaration issued vide proceedingsNo.G1/2349/2001.

3. As pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, itwas the case of the appellants, before the learned single Judge thatthey have acquired residential sites admeasuring 200 Sq. yards eachin the developed layout, in Silicon Heights, for the purpose ofconstructing residential houses therein. It was their grievance thatthough they have purchased the said pieces of land for the purpose ofconstructing residential houses, the same were notified for acquisitionby notification dated 08-06-2001, under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, which was published on 13-06-2001, for thepurpose of establishing Cyber Park, without conducting any enquiry ascontemplated under law. It was their grievance that though they havepurchased the said sites from the original owners, i.e., respondents 11to 28, in spite of the same, without due notice to them, acquisitionproceedings were taken up and they are sought to be dispossessed. Itis also alleged in the affidavit that acquisition proceedings are bad forthe reason that the notification and declaration are published on thesame day, and further, having regard to the purpose of acquisition,there was no such urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry, ascontemplated under Section 5-A of the Act.

4. The learned single Judge, by the order impugned, recorded afinding that the writ petition is of the year 2002 and this court passedinterim orders of status quo on 07-11-2002 for a period of only twoweeks and subsequently the said orders were not extended. Taking note of the averment in the counter affidavit, that award was passedwith regard to the acquired land and possession was also handed overto the beneficiary, the learned single Judge declined to interfere withthe acquisition proceedings.

5. In this appeal, it is contended by Mr. V. Hariharan, learnedcounsel for the appellants, that the very acquisition proceedings are perse illegal as much as the notification under 4(1) of the Act anddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act were published on the sameday. It is further submitted that the appellants themselves purchasedthe aforesaid residential house-sites and as their purchase was prior tothe date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, they were to begiven opportunity by the respondents before finalizing suchproceedings. It is submitted that, in any event, there was no need forinvoking urgency clause by dispensing with the enquiry, which is avaluable right conferred in the statute itself.

6. With reference to the afore-stated submissions made by thelearned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader forLand Acquisition appearing for the respondents has pointed out that, inthe counter affidavit it is stated that the notification under Section 4(1)and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, were published on 13-06-2001 and 14-06-2001 respectively. It is also stated in the counteraffidavit that possession of the land was taken and handed over to A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation on 02-07-2002 after passing ofaward by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide proceedings dated 31-1-2001. It is further stated that though the appellants claim to havepurchased lands in the aforesaid survey numbers, but, however, as perthe revenue records, the land covered by Sy.No.203 is a Governmentland and the appellants cannot claim any right and title over the saidland. It is stated that the land in Sy.No.203 was assigned in favour of third parties and there was no right for the assignees to alienate theland. With regard to the land covered by Sy.Nos. 204, 205 and 206/A,it is stated that the names of the appellants do not figure in the revenuerecords and as per the entries made in the revenue records, for the totalextent of Ac.6.23 guntas, patta stood in the name of the un-officialrespondents, and, as such, notification was issued based on the entriesin the revenue records. It is further submitted by the learnedGovernment Pleader that possession of the land in question was taken,even prior to grant of interim orders by this court and now in view of thefact that possession is already handed over to third parties severalyears back, without questioning the award proceedings, the appellantscannot claim any relief, at this point of time.

7. A separate counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.5 statingthat the land in question falls in the recreational use zone and thoughobjections and suggestions were invited with regard to the proposal forchange of land use from recreation use to residential use, however, asthere was no Government Order effecting the change of land usage, nomodification was done to Zonal Development Plan. It is further statedthat no application for sanction of layout was made for division of theland into plots and if any activity for construction is taken by thepetitioners, the same was illegal.

8. Although the appellants claim title over small pieces of landadmeasuring 200 Sq. yards each, however, they have not furnishedany particulars with regard to grant of layout by the competent authorityin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Further, in the counteraffidavit filed by Respondent No.5, it is categorically pleaded that theland which the subject matter of acquisition is not covered by anysanctioned layout by the competent authority. In absence of suchsanctioned layout by the competent authority, division of land into plotsis per se illegal and no sales could have taken place in absence of any

sanctioned layout for small plots as claimed by the appellants. Thoughit is the case of the appellants that notification under Section 4(1) anddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act were published on the same day,but, however, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that notification underSection 4(1) of the Act was published on 13-06-2001, whereasdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-06-2001. Itis evident from the counter affidavit that even before filing of the writpetition in the month of October, 2002, possession of the lands inquestion was taken on 02-07-2002 and was handed over to therequisition department. Even after filing of the writ petition, though theappellants-petitioners have obtained interim orders of status quo for aperiod of two weeks, thereafter, they could not seek any extensionorders and award was also passed pursuant to notification anddeclaration by conducting necessary enquiry. Though it is contendedby the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no reason todispense with the enquiry having regard to the purpose for which theland is sought to be acquired, but, however, such questions cannot beexamined at this belated stage, nearly after 7 years of passing of theaward pursuant to initiation of land acquisition proceedings.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MunicipalCorporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others.,[[1]]held that, normally Courtshould be loath to quash the proceedings at a belated stage afterpassing of the award. Further, in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others[[2]], theHon’ble Supreme Court held that, once award is passed, notificationunder Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 cannot be quashed. In the case on hand, itappears that the appellants have purchased plots in absence of a valid sanctioned layout by the competent authority and the same is evidentfrom the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5. In view of the factthat the land in question was taken possession in the year 2001, i.e.nearly 7 years back and as the award has become final, we do not findany illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge inrejecting to quash the notification at this belated stage. We too sharethe same view and reject this appeal.

10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, in thecircumstances, without any order as to costs.

__________________

ANIL R. DAVE, CJ.

December , 2008MRR

_______________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

[1]AIR 1997 SC 482[2]AIR 2000 SC 671