Telangana High Court
Dist Collector La, Nizamabad Dist And 2 ... vs Dr. Adusumilli Venkata Subba Rao Died ... on 30 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Writ Appeal No.470 of 2016
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana appears for the appellants.
Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 14.11.2014, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondents viz., W.P.No.27436 of 2008 has been allowed and it has been held that the action of the appellants in taking possession of subject lands without following the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act' hereinafter) is violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellants have been directed to take recourse to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement ::2::
Act, 2013 and to pay compensation within a period of three months.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that, one Dr. Adusumilli Venkata Subba Rao (hereinafter referred as 'Dr.AVS.Rao') purchased through registered sale deed, dated 20.06.1962, lands measuring Acs.7.08 guntas, Acs.8.08 guntas, Acs.6.04 guntas, Acs.11.01 guntas, Acs.4.17 guntas, Ac.0.29 guntas and Ac.0.22 guntas (total Acs.38.09 guntas) situate in Survey Nos.1615, 1616, 1617, 1622/1, 1623/1, 1623/2 & 1624/2 respectively of Mallaram Village, Nizamabad Sivar, Nizamabad District (hereinafter referred as 'the subject lands'), from one Sri Bhugromal and another.
4. The aforesaid Dr. AVS.Rao was in possession of the subject lands upto the year 1980. Thereafter, one Nageshwara Rao, who is the son of Dr. AVS.Rao and father of respondents No.2 and 3 passed away. Dr. AVS.Rao, being the paternal grandfather of respondents No.2 and 3, migrated to Gadwal, Krishna District, to ::3::
look after the welfare of respondents No.2 and 3 as they were minors and used to visit Nizamabad once in a while.
5. According to the respondents, the District Collector Nizamabad vide Gazette Notification No.22 dated 16.12.1982, took possession of the lands measuring 32.06 guntas after calling for claims from the persons interested by giving three months' notice from the date of publication of notice in Form-II under the 1974 Act. Thereafter, the said lands were handed over to the Executive Engineer (R&B), PWD, Nizamabad, for construction of stadium for the Sports Council, Nizamabad and for various Governmental institutions in the year 1981 and 1991 itself. According to the appellants, the rest of the land in Survey Nos.1993, 1994 and 1995 was not declared as Escheat under the 1974 Act.
6. Late Dr. AVS.Rao learnt about the encroachment made by various authorities of the Government unauthorisedly without following the due process of law and without making payment of the compensation. The aforesaid Dr. AVS.Rao along with his grand sons viz., respondents No.2 and 3 filed a writ petition in the ::4::
year 2008 viz., W.P.No.27436 of 2008, in which the following relief was prayed:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring upon the land in Survey Nos.1615, 1616, 1617, 1622/1, 1623/1, 1623/2 and 1624/2 to an extent of Acs.7.08 guntas, Acs.8.08 guntas, Acs.6.04 guntas, Acs.11.01 guntas, Acs.4.17 guntas, Ac.0.29 guntas and Ac.0.22 guntas respectively totaling to an extent of Acs.38.09 guntas situated at Mallaram Village, Nizamabad Sivar of Nizamabad District, without recourse to the due process of law and without initiating any acquisition or requisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and not paying any compensation as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings in acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and pay the compensation to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
::5::
7. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 14.11.2014, has inter alia held that the right to property is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was further held that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the appellants adhered to the mandatory procedure stipulated under the statute. It was also held that no material is produced to show that the appellants have followed the mandate prescribed under the 1974 Act. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and others through Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. and others 1, held that the contention with regard to delay and laches, as advanced by the learned Government Pleader, is of no significance. The learned Single Judge concluded that the action of appellants in taking possession of the subject lands without following the mandatory provisions of the 1974 Act is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellants were directed to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 1 (2013) 1 SCC 353 ::6::
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of the subject lands and to pay compensation and pass an award. The learned Single Judge further directed the appellants to conclude the exercise of initiation of process of land acquisition and payment of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana appearing for the appellants, at the outset, pointed out that the State of Telangana was impleaded as respondent No.3 on 14.11.2014 and on the same day itself, without giving either any notice or opportunity of hearing to the State of Telangana, the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the State of Telangana and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
::7::
9. While inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners), it is contended that as per the version of the respondents, they were in possession of the subject lands only till 1980 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2008, which suffers from delay and laches and the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra). It is also contended that the respondents are claiming the subject lands on the basis of a registered gift deed, which is not on record.
10. Lastly, it is contended that there is a dispute with regard to identity of the land, which has been acquired under the 1974 Act, as the survey numbers in the notification issued under the 1974 Act and the survey numbers on which reliance has been placed by the respondents are different. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has escaped the consideration of the learned Single Judge.
11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 fairly did not dispute the submission made ::8::
by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State of Telangana was impleaded on 14.11.2014 and on the same day, the writ petition was allowed. However, it was urged that the doctrine of delay and laches has no application to the fact situation of the case, as the respondents complain of infraction of constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the owner of the subject lands had filed a writ petition and on his death, the proceeding has been continued by his grandsons. It is also urged that there is neither any dispute with regard to identity of the subject lands nor entitlement of the respondents to claim compensation.
12. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides. In view of the reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants and in view of the stand taken by the appellants in their counter affidavit, in our considered opinion, the issue involved in this writ petition cannot effectively be adjudicated in the absence of the State Government.
::9::
13. In the peculiar facts of the case, the presence of the State Government is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition. The State has not been given an opportunity to file the counter affidavit. On this short ground alone, the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27436 of 2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge. Learned Additional Advocate General, with his usual fairness, submits that the State shall file the counter affidavit as expeditiously as possible. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition expeditiously.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 30.04.2024 vs/lur