Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. Sumantha Devi, W/O G.Arjun Reddy, ... vs 1.Smt. Laxmi Narsamma, W/O Late B.Sathi ... on 7 December, 2017
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.41418 of 2017
07-12-2017
Smt. Sumantha Devi, W/o G.Arjun Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.2-1-69/8/1, Laxma Reddy Colony, Uppal, R.R. D
1.Smt. Laxmi Narsamma, W/o Late B.Sathi Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.2-9-63, Bharath Nagar, Uppal Village,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-9-63, Bharath Nagar, Uppal Village, R.R. District 3. B.Shekar Reddy, S/o B.Sathi Reddy, Occ:
Bharath Nagar, Uppal Village, R.R. District 4. B.Sripal Reddy, S/o B.Sathi Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-9-63, Bha
5. The LAO, HMDA, (Musi River Conservation & River Front Development) Hyderabad 6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Se
Counsel for Petitioner:Mr. V.Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Respondents 1to4: ---
Counsel for Respondent No.5: Mr. Y.Rama Rao
Counsel for Respondent No.6: Government Pleader for
Land Acquisition (Telangana)
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No.41418 of 2017
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging an award passed by the Lok Adalat, settling
a dispute between the respondents 1 to 4 herein and the
5th respondent herein.
2. Heard Mr. V.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel, takes notice for
the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority.
3. It appears that the land of an extent of Ac.0.03
guntas in Survey No.305 in Uppal Bhagat, Ranga Reddy
District, originally owned by one Mr. B.Sathi Reddy, was
acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of
the Outer Ring Road, for the benefit of the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority. The land owner Sathi
Reddy, did not take the compensation in cash. He demanded
a land of the same value equivalent to the compensation and
eventually the Government accorded approval under
G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 22-01-2011, for the allotment of 1,000
square yards to the land owner in a developed area.
4. Contending that the allotment actually did not
fructify, the land owner B.Sathi Reddy went before the Lok
Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, the Land Acqisition Officer,
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and the land
owner Sathi Reddy entered into a compromise. Under the
compromise, the land owner agreed not to seek enhancement
of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 as a quid pro quo for the allotment of developed
land of an extent of 1,000 sq. yards in accordance with
G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 22-01-2011. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat
Passed an award on 14-3-2015.
5. It appears that thereafter the land owner Sathi Reddy
died leaving behind him surviving the respondents 1 to 4
herein as his legal heirs.
6. Upon coming to know of the Lok Adalat award, the
petitioner herein who claims to be an agreement holder for
the purchase of the very same land acquired by the
Government, under an agreement dated 29-12-2013, has
come up with the above writ petition challenging the Lok
Adalat award, on the ground that the Lok Adalat award was
brought forth by fraud and misrepresentation.
7. Even according to the petitioner, she entered into
an agreement only on 29-12-2013 with the original land
owner Sathi Reddy for the purchase of the land of an extent of
Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.305. But on the date on which
the petitioner entered into an agreement, Sathi Reddy did not
continue to be the owner of the property. The Lok Adalat
award discloses that the proceedings for acquisition were
completed and they also attained finality, much before 2011.
In fact, the land owner refused to take compensation in cash
leading to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
offering to allot 1,000 sq. yards of land in a developed area,
by their proceedings in LA/366/2005, dated 20-4-2007.
The offer of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority made in 2007 was accepted by the land owner and
the Government issued approval under G.O.Ms.No.36, dated
22-01-2011. Therefore, it is clear that the award under
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been passed
long before the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale
with the land owner. Once an award has been passed, the
land vests with the Government and the land owner did not
have any title to pass on to the petitioner under the
agreement of sale dated 29-12-2013.
8. Therefore, the petitioner can work out her remedies
only as against the land owner or his legal heirs and the
petitioner cannot find fault with the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority and seek to set aside the award of the
Lok Adalat. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving
it open to the petitioner to proceed against the land owner or
his legal heirs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J.
07th December, 2017.