Telangana High Court
Smt.Rasheda Begum, vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 7 August, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.43302 of 2017
ORDER:
Petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house plot bearing Municipal No.5-104/4 (Old No.5-104) admeasuring 610.55 sq. yds situated at Raidurg Panmaktha Village, Ranga Reddy District, which she purchased under a registered sale deed dt.28-09-1988 from one Mohd.Ibrahim under Doc.No.7561/1988 (Ex.P-3).
2. However, an extent of 421 sq. yds out of this land along with other lands in Gachibowli village was notified under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") on 05-02-2010 for acquisition followed by declaration under Section 6 on 26-04-2010. In the said notification and declaration, petitioner's name was not shown.
3. Thereafter an award was passed in proceedings No.I/3230/1999 dt.06-09-2010. In the award also, the name of the petitioner was not reflected. Strangely, the award nowhere states what was the market value of the per sq.yd in Raidurg Panmaktha village. The award however states that alternate land of extent 248 sq. yds in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda village would be given in lieu of 421 sq yds taken by the State and this land at Khajaguda has market value of Rs.11,000/- per sq.yd.
2 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017
4. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.1484 Revenue (Land Acquisition) Dept dt.31-12-2010 was issued by the Government according permission to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy for allotting 248 sq. yds of land of Khajaguda village in Sy.No.28 of the said village as compensation in lieu of the land acquired in Sy.No.1 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village to the persons who lost the land under the above notification.
5. However, the said alternate land in Khajaguda Village under G.O.Ms.No.1484 Revenue (Land Acquisition) Dept dt.31-12-2010 was not given to the petitioner though petitioner and her daughter gave a representation dt.26-10-2015. So petitioner and her daughter Dr.Ghazala Abdul Sattar to file W.P.No.14351 of 2016.
6. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 27-04-2016 directing the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer to consider petitioner's application dt.26-10-2015 within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order and communicate their decision thereon.
7. C.C.No.329 of 2017 was filed by petitioner before this Court complaining of non-implementation of the order dt.27-04-2016 in W.P.No.14351 of 2016.
8. During the pendency of the said Contempt Case, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy issued proceedings No.G2/992017 dt.06-05-2017 admitting that the petitioner is in physical possession of 3 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017 190.55 Sq. yds on ground after excluding 420 sq. yds, which was acquired for road widening purpose in view of construction of Gachibowli Stadium, and directed issuance of land transfer certificate in favour of petitioner for an extent of 248 sq. yds in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as alternative land compensation in lieu of the acquisition of 421 Sq. yds of her land.
9. Thereafter Land Transfer Certificate dt.06-05-2017 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar.
10. The Contempt Case is still said to be pending.
11. Thereafter petitioner applied on 20-10-2017 to the Government for exemption of payment of stamp duty, registration fee and transfer duty for registration of the land in her favour. This was not disposed of. So she filed W.P.No.38325 of 2017. It was allowed on 14-11-2017 directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Municipal Administration of the State of Telangana to dispose of petitioner's representation dt.20-10-2017.
12. Ultimately, an exchange deed was executed by the State of Telangana through its Revenue Divisional Officer in favour of petitioner on 10-04-2018 transferring 248 sq. yds in Sy.No.28 to the petitioner, but petitioner received the transferred land under protest and this is specifically recorded in the said deed.
4 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017
13. Petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition contending that in a letter No.6311/G1/2017 dt.18-10-2017, the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District had stated that both the value of her land in Raidurg Panmaktha village and the value of the land in Khajaguda village was Rs.20,000/- per sq. yard; but only 280 sq. yds was allotted to her in Khajaguda village instead of 421 sq. yds and she is entitled to allotment of a further extent of 173 sq. yds in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda village since her land in Raidurg Panmaktha is actually commercial bit of old Bombay Highway road whose market value is Rs.30,000/- per sq. yard.
14. It is her further contention that the value of land in Sy.No.1 at Raidurg Panmaktha was Rs.18,000/- per sq.yd in 2009 and Rs.30,000/- in 2018, but treating it as Rs.6500/- per sq.yd only lesser extent of land of only 248 sq.yds in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda which was only Rs.11,000/- per sq.yd in 2009 and now Rs.20,000/- was given to her. She filed certificates issued by the Jt.Sub-Registrar-II, Ranga Reddy in 2018 in support of her plea.
15. The 6th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that award was passed in respect of the land of the petitioner on the ground that there was no claim over the said land by the petitioner invoking Section 31(3) of the Act; petitioner requested for additional land of 173 sq. yds at Khajaguda, that the land value of petitioner's in Sy.No.1 of Raidurg was Rs.6500/- per sq. yd whereas the land in 5 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017 Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda is Rs.11,000/- per sq. yd; and the land allotted to her at Khajaguda is of commensurate value to the 421 sq. yds of land which was acquired from her and she is not entitled to any more land.
16. Though it is denied that without the consent and knowledge of petitioner, her land has been acquired, the fact remains that petitioner's name was not reflected in Section 4(1) notification or Section 6 declaration issued in the year 2010 acquiring her land.
17. During the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to produce proof of service of notice under Section 5-A as well as notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on the petitioner and also what steps respondents have taken for allotment of alternate land to the petitioner between 2010 and 2017.
18. To this, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition states on instructions, that the notice under Section 5A as well as Section 12(2) of the Act were not served on petitioner and that the petitioner was not in India at that point of time.
19. To the question as to what steps were taken by respondents for allotment of alternate land to petitioner between 2010 and 2017, there is no additional affidavit.
6 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017
20. Facts narrated above by me clearly indicate that even 248 sq. yds offered to the petitioners in the award of 2010 reached the petitioner on 10-04-2018 after much effort, expense and persuasion by filing the Writ Petition Nos.14351 of 2016, 38325 of 2017 and Contempt Case No.321 of 2017.
21. Thus there has been an unduly long delay in compensating the petitioner for her land of 421 sq.yds in Sy.No.1 of Raidurg Panmaktha village taken in 2010 by respondents.
22. The Supreme Court and this Court have held that long delay in payment of compensation vitiates the very exercise of power to acquire land.
23. In Ambalal Purshottam etc., Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others1, the Supreme Court held that after issuance of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government cannot allow the matters to drift and take proceedings for assessment of compensation, whenever they thought it proper to do and in cases of delay, it is open to the aggrieved persons to claim writs compelling the Government to complete the assessment and payment of compensation.
24. In P.Appalamurthy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2, Justice Jeevan Reddy, following the said decision, held that after notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of 1 AIR 1968 S.C. 1223 2 AIR 1981 A.P. 278 7 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017 the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government cannot wait for result of the proceedings under the Land Ceiling Law and pass awards 11 years after the notification and this would be unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power. He also followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in Krishna Iyer Vs. State of Madras3 which held that since the compensation has to be determined with reference to the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, the person whose land is to be acquired may stand to lose if there is a great delay between the notification under Section 4 (1) and the notification under Section 6 (1) in case prices have risen in the meantime, and the person aggrieved, where there is undue prolongation of the proceedings leading to increase of land values by leaps and bounds, and can approach the Court for appropriate relief. Justice Jeevan Reddy held in P.Appalamurthy and others (3 supra) that every public authority is bound to act reasonably and fairly in exercise of its power and an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power cannot be countenanced by Courts. More so where it causes prejudice and loss to the citizens.
25. This judgment was upheld in W.A.No.368 of 1981 and batch on 14-07-1983 and was again followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Singareni Colleries Company Limited and others Vs. V.Satyanarayana Murthy and others4 and also in 3 1967 (2) Madras Law Journal 422 4 1983 (2) APLJ 405 8 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017 D.Vijaya Lakshmi and another Vs. District Collector, Krishna and others5.
26. In the instant case, no doubt the award was passed on 06-09-2010 in respect of 421 sq yds of petitioner's land in Sy. No.1 of Rajadarga village stating in the award that she would be given 248 sq yds in Sy. No.28 of Khajaguda village and issued G.O.Ms.No.1484 dt.31-12-2010. Even the said land was given to the petitioner after putting her to much effort expense only on 10-04-2018 as mentioned above. Admittedly, the exchange deed dt.10-4-2018 itself recites that petitioner received the 248 sq.yds in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda under protest.
27. Since the respondents are not accepting petitioner's claim for the extra land of 173 sq.yds in Khajaguda and as per the market value certificates filed by petitioner, which are not disputed by respondents, it appears that the respondents incorrectly took value of her land as Rs.6,500/-per sq.yd (I have already stated that the award curiously does not mention what is the value of her land in Sy.No.1 of Raidurg Panmaktha), I find force in petitioner's contention that she was given under the exchange deed dt.10-04-2018 a lesser extent than what she was entitled to, as equivalent compensation, that too, after a period of eight years from the notification issued for acquisition of her land on 05-02-2010.
5 1999 (3) ALD 29 9 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017
28. In my considered opinion, the delay of 8 years in giving the alternative land to petitioner is unreasonable delay and per se arbitrary since it caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. The decision in P.Appalamurthy and others (3 supra) applies on all fours.
29. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the very notification dt.05-02-2010 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act acquiring petitioner's land of 421 sq yds in Raidurg Panmaktha village is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of the unreasonable delay in payment of compensation to her. It is therefore liable to be set aside.
30. According to the petitioner, the land which was conveyed to her by the respondents was gifted by her to her daughter Dr.Ghazala Abdul Sattar under a registered gift deed and that petitioner and her daughter are willing to reconvey the land to 5th respondent and also deliver possession thereof to 5th respondent.
31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 05-02-2010 acquiring 421 sq yds in Sy. No.1 of Raidurg Panmaktha village of petitioner is quashed; and the respondents are directed to issue fresh notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation, transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) in respect of the said land, pass a fresh award thereon with all the benefits thereunder within four 10 MSR,J W.P.No.43302 of 2017 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner and her daughter Dr.Ghazala Abdul Sattar are directed to restore possession of the land conveyed under the registered exchange deed document No.5916/2018 dt.10-04-2018 thereunder to 5th respondent after giving due notice within four (04) weeks from today. Further, the petitioner and her daughter Dr.Ghazala Abdul Sattar shall reconvey the land of 248 sq yds in Sy. No.28 of Khajaguda village to respondent No.5 within four (04) weeks. No costs.
32. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 07-08-2018 Vsv/kvr