Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
State Motor Transport Operators ... vs Commissioner Of Transport, Govt. Of ... on 11 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)ALD268, 2001(3)ALT25
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioner is an association representing the Motor Transport Operators in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to develop and implement the Truck Terminal Project at Moosapet, Rangareddy District in the land already acquired for the said purpose. It seeks appropriate directions for implementation of a Governmental Order in G.O. Ms. No.74-MA, dated 24-12-1993.
2. It may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.
3. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority prepared master plan in the year 1981 in purported exercise of power conferred under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act'). The master plan notified in the year 1981 identified Mosapet as one of the locations for establishing and setting up a Truck Terminal on the Hyderabad-Bombay National Highway. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority itself was constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the provisions of the said Act on 2-10-1975.
4. The Authority accordingly sent proposal for acquisition of about 33-00 acres of land in Moosapet. The Collector, Rangareddy District was authorised to acquire the land on behalf of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. The Collector accordingly approved the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short 'the Land Acquisition Act') and notified the same in the State Gazette on 18-12-1980. There is no dispute whatsoever that the laud itself was acquired for and on behalf of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and the entire compensation payable to the land owners was paid by the Authority. Some disputes arose between the owners of the land and the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in respect of the proposed acquisition with which we are not concerned for the present in this writ petition. The fact remains that the lands were acquired for public purpose to wit, for establishment of Truck Terminal at Moosapet.
5. The notification issued by the District Collector under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent proceedings under Hie Land Acquisition Act in unmistakable terms reveal that the lands were acquired for public purpose, namely for establishment of Truck Terminal at Moosapet. The land was never acquired and meant for utilisation as such exclusively by the petitioners' association. It is entirely a different mater altogether even the members of the petitioners' association would have derived some benefit if the Truck Terminal was established for which purpose the lands have been acquired. The land was obviously acquired for the benefit of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for development of a Truck Terminal so as to regulate the Highway traffic to bypass the city so that the free flow of local traffic is not hindered. The land was obviously acquired in the public interest and in the interest of twin cities traffic and not for the benefit of the members of the petitioners' association.
6. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No.740, MA, dated 24-12-1993 where under an Empowered Committee is constituted in order to effectively plan and implement the Moosapet Truck Terminal Project on a time bound schedule. The Empowered Committee consists of the following members.
1. Vice-Ch airman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
2. Commissioner of Police.
3. Commissioner of Transport.
4. Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
5. Sri Mohd. Khan, Secretary, TOHAS & General Secretary, State Motor Transport Operators Association, Hyderabad.
The gravamen of the complaint in the instant writ petition is that even after the constitution of such Empowered Committee as a medium for the purpose of implementing the scheme to set up Truck Terminal, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority started acting as though it is the absolute owner of the acquired land. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is alleged to have notified the land in question in the newspapers for developing the acquired land through Central Ware Housing Corporatiop Limited under a scheme as BOOT (Build, own, operate and Transfer). It is the case of the petitioners' association that the land in question could be utilised only for development of the Truck Terminal of Moosapet in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.740, dated 24-12-1993. The respondents are estopped from utilizing the land for any other public purpose. In short, the case of the petitioners' association is that the land must be utilised only for development of the Truck Terminal. The whole case of the petitioner is based upon G.O. Ms. No.740, dated 24-12-1993.
7. As is evident from the GO itself, the Government constituted an Empowered Committee in order to effectively plan and implement the Moosapet Truck Terminal Project in a time bound schedule. There is doubt about the same. But the GO itself would reveal that only a portion of the land so acquired was sought to be utilised to accommodate atleast 300 Trucks. It appears only Ac.9.5 acres was meant to be utilised for the purpose of the said project initially and the Government thought it fit to increase the same to accommodate atleast 300 Trucks. The Government with a view to subsidise the cost of the land which is used for actual Truck Parking area and to peg down the costs of other plots to provide economical services and amenities enabled the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority to auction front row of the plots with appropriate architectural control, FSI and land used to optimize the bid realisation. All other plots including the godown plots excluding parking area was directed to be disposed of at the rate fixed, keeping in view, but suitably less than, the auction bids realised on the first row, to realise the project objective of "no profit no loss". Thus it is clear that the entire land acquired under the notification was never meant to be utilised for the purpose of setting up a Truck Terminal Project,
8. It is the case of the Government that after the constitution of the Empowered Committee on 24-12-1993, number of meetings were held but no decision could be taken in view of the writ petitions filed from time to time by the owners questioning the use of the land. The writ petitions were finally disposed of by this Court only in December, 1995. The case of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority that the land in question is developed by providing necessary infrastructure by investing huge amounts. Some of the plots were sought to be disposed of by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for further development of the components of the Truck Terminal. At that stage, writ petitions were filed in the year 1992. The Government also intervened in the matter at the instance of some owners and granted stay of disposal of the plots in order to reconsider the project.
9. In the meanwhile the ground realities have changed in this interregnum. There is a sea change in and around the vicinity of the locality where the land is situated. Number of residential colonies have come up in the areas surrounding the land. Kukatpally Housing Board Colony which is one of the biggest colony in South-East Asia is also located nearby the land in question. It is required to notice that the land was acquired as early as in the year 1980. The master plan itself was notified by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in the year 1981 earmarking the said land for Truck Terminal. In the circumstances, it is the case of the Government as well as the Authority that in view of the changed scenario, establishment of Truck Terminal at the chosen place is not conducive for the public at large and especially for the residents of the surrounding areas. In nutshell, it is the case of the respondents that the whole of the area has now become a residential area. The Urban Development Authority which is admittedly the planning authority for the Hyderabad Urban area is stated to be preparing a revised master plan and as per the same, the laud is proposed to be earmarked as residential or commercial use by the public at large. In the revised plan, the Truck Terminal is earmarked and sought to be located on National Highways and Express Ways far away from residential localities especially nearer to the bye-pass roads to avoid entry of Trucks into the core city area for the bye-pass traffic.
10. It is also the case of the Government that the Government has decided to cancel G.O. Ms. No.740 in view of the subsequent events but could not do so in view of the pendency of this writ petition as well as the earlier writ petitions which were disposed of in the year 1995.
11. On the basis of the record, the Court finds that the land in question was acquired for the benefit of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. No doubt in the notification it is stated that the lands are needed for a public purpose to wit for establishment of Truck Terminal at Moosapet. The compensation payable to the land owners was paid by the Authority. The litigation between the land owners and the Urban Development Authority went on till 22-12-1995 when the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court. The lands after acquisition is vested with the Development Authority free from all encumbrances. The Urban Development Authority spent considerable amounts for developing the land in question apart from paying compensation to the land owners.
12. The entire case rests upon the assertion as if the land in question was acquired for the benefit of the members of the petitioners' association. Neither the notification issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act nor the Governmental order in G.O. Ms. No.740 dated 24-12-1993 lent any support to the plea taken by the petitioners in this regard. May be, the members of the petitioners' association' could have utilised the Truck Terminal had it come into existence. But the petitioners' association cannot be treated as the ultimate beneficiaries. It is relevant to notice that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was initiated as early as in the year 1980 and whereas the Government constituted an Empowered Committee in the year 1993 associating the petitioners' association as one of the members of the Empowered Committee. But the fact remains that no final decision could be taken by the Empowered Committee for the effective implementation of the scheme. Having regard to the subsequent events, the Government thought it fit to cancel the GO itself. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority proposed to use the land as residential/commercial use by the public at large.
13. Sri C.R. Prathap Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad v. State of A.P., , in support of his submission that the land in question cannot be utilised by the respondents for any other public purpose. It is contended that the land should properly be utilised to achieve the purpose for which they were acquired. In my considered opinion, the said decision is not an authority for the proposition that the land acquired for a public purpose can never be utilised for any other public purpose. The Apex Court in the said decision rejected the extreme contention of the Counsel appearing for the Government across the Bar that the lands acquired may be permitted to be utilised for a public purpose other than the one for which the lands were acquired.
There was no specific proposal as such by the State Government in the said case to utilise the land for any other public purpose. It was just an argument across the Bar. It was in the said context, the Court observed that "once we uphold the validity of the proceedings for acquisition under the Acquisition Act, it has to follow that the lands have to be utilised for the purposes for which they were acquired". The question as to whether the State is entitled to utilise the land for a different public purpose other than for which it was acquired was never put in issue before the Supreme Court in the said case. Such question did not arise for consideration. In the circumstances, the decision upon which reliance is placed cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 437. The said decision, in my considered opinion, also does not support the case of the petitioners' association in any manner whatsoever. The question that had fallen for consideration in the said decision relates to the rights of the beneficiary of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act to resist withdrawal of acquisition proceedings. It was a case where the land was acquired for public purpose for the benefit of a society for housing its members. Award has been passed. The Society had paid the entire cost of acquisition: The land in question was to be handed over to the Society in accordance with law and at that stage a notification withdrawing the very acquisition came to be passed. The Supreme Court held that the State Government could not have withdrawn from the acquisition without hearing the beneficiary Society. The Supreme Court held that the decision to withdraw from the acquisition is unjustified. The acquisition therein was for a specific purpose of providing house-sites to the members of the Society consisting of Weaker Sections of the Society. The Society paid the entire amount for acquisition. It is under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the notification withdrawing the very acquisition could not have been issued without hearing the beneficiary.
14. On the other hand, as observed by the Supreme Court, the question as to whether a particular scheme framed in exercise of statutory provisions is in the public interest or not has to be determined according to the need of the time and a final decision for all times to come cannot be taken. "A particular scheme may serve the public purpose at a given point of time but due to change of circumstances it may become essential to modify or substitute it by another scheme. The requirements of the community do not remain static; they indeed, go on varying with the evolving process of social life. Accordingly, there must be creative response from the public authority, and the public scheme must be varied to meet the changing needs of the public". (See State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeodeoman Rai, . In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra, , the Supreme Court observed that "it is axiomatic that the land acquired for a public purpose would be utilised for any other public purpose, though use of it was intended for the original public purpose". In Stale of Kerala v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, , the Supreme Court held that it is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution".
15. Thus it is clear that the land acquired for public purpose can be utilised by the State or its instrumentality for any other public purpose. In fact the subsequent events after the acquisition of the land for a public purpose are bound to be taken into consideration by Authority concerned to decide as to whether the land is required for the very same public purpose or should be utilised for any other public purpose. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not normally interfere as long as the acquired land is used for a public purpose. The said public purpose could be a different one than the one for which the land has been acquired.
16. In the instant case the land was acquired for a public purpose for providing a Truck Terminal at Moosapet. The subsequent events would disclose that the project could not be successfully implemented. In the meanwhile there is a sea change in the ground reality. The land is now in the midst of the residential locality and abutting one of the biggest residential complex in the South-East Asia. The Government and the Urban Development Authority having examined the issue came to the conclusion that it is not feasible to utilise the land for the same purpose for providing and establishing a Truck Terminal. The land is proposed to be utilised for residential/commercial purpose. In fact the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority contemplates modification in the matter plan proposing to reserve this land for residential/ commercial purpose. The land continues to be part of development area. The proposed utilisation cannot be said to be not a public purpose.
17. At any rate the land in question has never been acquired for the benefit of the petitioners' association. The land was acquired for the public purpose for providing Truck Terminal with a view to avoid the entry of lorry traffic into the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Terminal itself was sought to be set up with a view to avoid traffic congestion in the twin cilies. The land was obviously acquired in the public interest and it was never meant for protecting "the interest or providing any particular benefit to the petitioners' association.
18. The land was acquired for the benefit of the Urban Development Authority and the entire compensation 'has been deposited by the Authority and the same was accordingly paid to the owners of the land. The land absolutely vests in the Urban Development Authority free from all encumbrances. It is entitled to utilise the lands for any public purpose.
19. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
20. It is however stated that on account of the interim order granted by this Court, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority could not move in the matter to protect the land in question and the same has been subjected to attempts of encroachment. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority shall be perfectly at liberty to take such necessary steps as may be required to protect its own land and effectively prevent the encroachers from intruding and occupying the lands. In fact it is duty bound to do so.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition shall stand dismissed with costs.