WP/26083/2007 of Gousia Sultana Vs The Collector, on 24 December 2007

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in acquiring the agricultural landadmeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas situated in Survey No. 5 of JalpallyVillage, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District and demolishing thestructures therein without following due process of law, as illegal andarbitrary.

The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the above-said land under registered sale deed dated 31.05.2002 from theoriginal owner Sri G. Balaiah, S/o Jangaiah. It is further stated in theaffidavit that pattedar passbook and title deeds were issued in thename of said Balaiah and that after the purchase of the property, thename of petitioner No.1 was mutated in the Record of Rights videproceedings dated 03.11.2006. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been running an industry of manufacturingcardboard on the site and they are in lawful possession of the property,the respondents are seeking to demolish the entire structure withoutissuing notice and without acquiring the land.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector(Land Acquisition), International Air Port, Shamshabad (respondentNo.2), it has been stated that the property in dispute was assigned infavour of Sri G. Jangaiah and that even if any alienation is made by theassignee in favour of the petitioners, the same is hit by the provisionsof Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition ofTransfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the 1977 Act’).

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for thepetitioners and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the property waspurchased under registered sale deed and the name of petitioner No.1was mutated in the revenue records and that, therefore, they aredeemed to be the lawful owners of the property and “personsinterested” under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (forshort, ‘the 1894 Act’). He submitted that the action of the respondentsin seeking to interfere with the property of the petitioners withoutacquiring the land is in violation of the provisions of the 1894 Act.

In the counter-affidavit, a specific plea is taken that the propertyin dispute is an assigned land. Under the provisions of the 1977 Act,sale of an assigned land is prohibited and, as such a sale is neverdeemed to have taken place. The only exception carved out to thisprohibition is envisaged under Section 3(5) of the said Act, wherein ifthe purchaser proves to the satisfaction of the authorities that theproperty was purchased bona fide and for valuable consideration before the commencement of the Act, such a transaction will beexempted from the provisions of the said Act.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that sincethe land belongs to the government and is an assigned land, as amatter of policy, the government has not been notifying the propertiesfor acquisition and that if the assignee makes a claim for exgratia/compensation, his case will be considered.

In the light of the respective submissions, I deem it appropriateto dispose of the writ petition with the following terms:

1) The petitioners are permitted to make representation torespondent No.1 for payment of compensation.respondent No.1 for payment of compensation.

Conclusion

2) Resondent No.1 shall, on such representation being made bythe petitioners, consider whether they have acquired theproperty in accordance with law and not in violation of theprovisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 and if he is satisfied that thepetitioners are the lawful owners of the property, he shall fix thequantum of compensation permissible in law for the same.the petitioners, consider whether they have acquired theproperty in accordance with law and not in violation of theprovisions of Act No. 9 of 1977 and if he is satisfied that thepetitioners are the lawful owners of the property, he shall fix thequantum of compensation permissible in law for the same.

3) Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a periodof eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation from thepetitioners.of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation from thepetitioners.

Ordered accordingly.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 34012of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

24.12.2007

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

ksld