Telangana High Court
M. Prabhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 30 December, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WP No.10026 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. L.Vani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in paying meager compensation amount for the petitioner's land admeasuring 936 Sq. Yards out of 1560 Sq. yards in Sy.No.93/A of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District against the consent of the petitioner and against the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the GHMC Act, 1955') as well as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act, 2013') as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONER:-
3. Originally, the entire land admeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas situated in Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District belonging to one Mr.A.Shankaraiah KL,J wp_10026_2024 2 S/o.Narayana and his name was also mutated in the revenue records including Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55. Pattadar passbooks and title deed were also issued in his favour. The said A.Shankaraiah along with his sons sold the land admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas out of Ac.2.30 guntas to Mr. M.Veerappa and Mr.M.Veda Prakash under registered sale deed bearing Document No.7950 of 1980 dated 25.07.2080. Therefore, left over land was Ac.0.33 guntas.
4. After the demise of A.Shankaraiah, his legal heirs have succeeded the subject property. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. The petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1560 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as "subject property") from the legal heirs of A.Shankaraiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6211 of 2015, dated 11.08.2015. He is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject property.
5. The Member of Legislative Assembly of Rajendranagar Constituency, sought the subject land for the purpose of conducting Bathukamma festival and other cultural programmes for the locals.
KL,J wp_10026_2024 3 He persuaded the petitioner to handover the land to the 2nd respondent assuring him the payment of compensation. On the said persuasion, the petitioner agreed to give subject property provided that the 2nd respondent pays twice the market value prevailing as on that date and accordingly, under pressure and persuasion, issued a consent letter dated 06.11.2017 seeking an amount of Rs.8,000/- per square yard which is twice the prevailing market value as compensation. The 2nd respondent assured the petitioner that the compensation will be paid to him in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by providing market value and additional solatium equivalent to 100% of the market value and therefore, on the said assurance, the petitioner gave consent seeking for double the market value as prevailing as on that date. The 2nd respondent kept the proceedings pending for the reasons best known to him.
6. The 2nd respondent has unilaterally decided that an extent of 624 Sq. yards is within buffer zone and has decided to give TDR at the rate of 200% and to award compensation for only the balance land of 936 Sq. yards. Under the pressure of local politicians and KL,J wp_10026_2024 4 respondent No.3, they have conducted the Bathukamma festival celebrations and other activities in the petitioner land promising to pay suitable compensation and the petitioner agreed for TDR for 40% of the land and compensation for rest 60% of the land as per Act 30 of 2013, but the same was not paid. After lapse of six years and only in the month of July, 2023, 2nd respondent disbursed the compensation amount without considering the market value prevailing as on date is Rs.8,100/- per Sq. yard and that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,200/- per Sq. yard as per Act, 30 of 2013.
7. The 2nd respondent obtained certain documents such as affidavit, undertaking, irrevocable GPA etc., from the petitioner under the pressure. He has also paid an amount of Rs.74,88,000/- vide cheque bearing No.498369 dated 08.06.2023 to the petitioner towards compensation. 2nd respondent has also issued TDR certificate dated 09.11.2023 and the petitioner received the same under protest. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire action of the 2nd respondent in paying meager compensation to him is in violation of the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and also the procedure under the Act, 30 of 2013. Therefore, KL,J wp_10026_2024 5 challenging the said action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF 2ND RESPONDENT:
8. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner gave consent in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and on consideration of the same, he has obtained all the relevant documents. On consideration of the same and also FTL and Buffer Zone Rules, the 2nd respondent has paid an amount of Rs.74,88,000/- towards compensation in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and also issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023 to the petitioner. The same was paid on obtaining approval from the GHMC on 31.10.2022. Having received the said compensation and TDR Certificate, voluntarily, the petitioner filed the present writ petition after lapse of nine months. The land in Sy.No.93/A showing the site bund, Buffer of bund which is falling near downstream side of palle cheruvu. During the physical verification, it was found that there are no traces of Nala, however, there is an existence of an abandoned sluice behind temple. The petitioner by suppressing the said facts, received the aforesaid compensation and filed the present KL,J wp_10026_2024 6 writ petition on false and baseless grounds to get more compensation from the 2nd respondent-Corporation.
9. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the said counter stating that he gave consent only on the assurance given by the 2nd respondent that they will pay the compensation as requested by him in his letter dated 06.11.2017 and 18.12.2018. Though the letter was submitted on 06.11.2017, compensation was paid only on 08.06.2023 and TDR Certificate was issued only on 09.11.2023 and certain documents such as affidavit, undertaking, irrevocable GPA etc., were obtained by him under pressure. Therefore, the entire action of the 2nd respondent in not paying the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the subject land is in violation of the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 and also the Act, 30 of 2013.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
10. The petitioner acquired the subject property under the registered sale deed bearing document No.6211 of 2015 dated 11.08.2015. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner is an absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he gave consent to hand over the subject land to the 2nd KL,J wp_10026_2024 7 respondent for the purpose of celebrations of Bathukamma Festival under the pressure built up by local MLA and assurance given by 2nd respondent to pay compensation. 2nd respondent has paid compensation of Rs.74,88,000/- in respect of 60% of the land and issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023 in respect of 40% of the subject land. The 2nd respondent has specifically mentioned the said fact in a tabular form in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit. Thus, according to the 2nd respondent, there is no error in paying the compensation and issuing TDR Certificate to the petitioner. But, according to the petitioner, he gave consent only on the pressure of local MLA and on the assurance given by 2nd respondent to pay compensation.
11. It is apt to note that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 06.11.2017 giving consent to the 2nd respondent to hand over the subject land on the condition of payment of that suitable land compensation i.e., Rs.8,000/- per square yard. Thus, according to the petitioner, 2nd respondent did not pay compensation and also TDR as requested by the petitioner. Though the consent letter is dated 06.11.2017, compensation was paid only on 08.06.2023 and TDR KL,J wp_10026_2024 8 Certificate was issued on 09.11.2023, that too, compensation was paid considering market value of the subject property of the year 2017.
12. In the light of the said rival submissions, as discussed supra, there is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of subject property. There is also no dispute that local MLA persuaded the petitioner to hand over the subject property for the purpose of construction of Bathukamma festival platform and also for other cultural activities.
13. Thus, the 2nd respondent has the following two options to acquire the subject property.
1) By following the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
2) By following the procedure laid down under the Act, 30 of 2013.
14. Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 deals with Acquisition of immovable property by agreement, the same is relevant and it is extracted hereunder:
KL,J wp_10026_2024 9 "146. Acquisition of immovable property by agreement:
(1)Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Commissioner may acquire, or whenever it is necessary or expedient for any purpose of this Act that the Commissioner shall acquire, any immovable property, such property may be acquired by the Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation by agreement on such terms at such rates or prices or at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee, either generally for any class of cases or specially in a particular case.
(2)And whenever, under any provision of this Act, the Commissioner is authorised to agree to pay the whole or any portion of the expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he shall do so on such terms and at rates or prices or at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee as aforesaid.
(3)Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Commissioner on behalf of Corporation to agree with the owner of any land or of any interest in land needed by the Corporation for the purposes of any scheme under Chapter XIII or with the owner of any right which may have been created by legislative enactment over any street forming part of the land so needed, for the purchase of such land or of any interest in such land or for compensating the owner of any such right in respect of any deprivation thereof or interference therewith.
(4)No contract for the acquisition of any immovable property or of any interest therein or any right thereto or the KL,J wp_10026_2024 10 payment of any compensation under sub-section (1), (2) or (3) shall be valid, if the price or compensation to be paid for such property or interest or right exceeds rupees five thousand unless and until such contract has been approved by the Corporation.
(5)Every contract or other instrument relating to the acquisition of immovable property or any interest therein or any right thereto shall be executed by the Commissioner, shall have the common seal of the Corporation affixed thereto in the presence of [two officers nominated by the Commissioner] [Substituted by Act No.3 of 1994.] and shall also have the signature of the said [two officers] [Substituted by Act No.15 of 2013.].
(6)No contract for the acquisition of immovable property or any interest therein or any right thereto not executed as provided in sub-section (4) shall be binding on the Corporation.
(7)The foregoing provisions of this section which apply to an original contract relating to the acquisition of immovable property, or any interest therein, or any right thereto, shall be deemed to apply also to any variation or discharge of such contract."
15. It is also relevant to note that Section 147 of the GHMC Act deals with disposal of property and interests therein. The same is relevant and it is extracted hereunder:
KL,J wp_10026_2024 11 "147. Disposal of property and interests therein.
(1)Whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire any immovable property under the last preceding section by agreement, the Government may, in their discretion, upon the application of the Commissioner, made with the approval of the Standing Committee and subject to the other provisions of this Act, order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of the Corporation, [in accordance with the provisions of the [Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)] [Substituted by Act No.14 of 1989.] as amended from time to time as if such property were land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.] (2)The amount of compensation awarded and all other charges incurred in the acquisition of any such property shall, subject to all other provisions of this Act, be forthwith paid by the Commissioner and thereupon the said property shall vest in the Corporation. Disposal of Property."
16. If the petitioner (land owner) fails to give his consent to the 2nd respondent for acquisition and handing over the subject property, the only option left to the 2nd respondent is to acquire the same by following the procedure laid down under the Act 30 of 2013. Detailed procedure is laid down under Section 30 of 2013. It is the specific contention of 2nd respondent that the petitioner gave consent to hand over the subject property, therefore, there is no need of referring to the KL,J wp_10026_2024 12 detailed procedure prescribed under the Act 30 of 2013 to decide the lis involved in the present writ petition.
17. In Church of South India Trust Association Vs. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Ors 1, Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, categorically held that any acquisition without following procedure contemplated under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955, is illegal. Mere fact of acceptance of some amount by the person, does not dispense with the statutory requirement nor validate the legally invalid transaction as there cannot be estoppel as against law. Division Bench considered the procedure laid down under Sections 146 and 147 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and on examination of the facts, it was held that the entire action of Municipal Corporation with regard to acquisition of land is illegal.
18. It is the specific contention of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent had acquired the subject property from the petitioner in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. There is no dispute 1 2015 (4) ALD 448 KL,J wp_10026_2024 13 that the 2nd respondent has power to acquire the subject property from the petitioner in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955, but at the same time, he has to follow the entire procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
19. The mandatory requirements of Section 146 of the GHMC Act are as follows:
1) There should be an agreement on such terms at such rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee,
2) The Commissioner has power to agree to pay the whole or any portion of the expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he shall do on such terms and at rates or prices or at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima, as should be approved by the Standing Committee, and
3) The Commissioner can negotiate with the owner of lands for payment of interest.
Thus, 2nd respondent shall follow the said mandatory requirements in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC while acquiring the subject property of the petitioner.
20. As per Section 147 of the GHMC Act, 1955, whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire any immovable property under the KL,J wp_10026_2024 14 last preceding section by agreement, the Government may, in their discretion, upon the application of the Commissioner, made with the approval of the Standing Committee and subject to the other provisions of this Act, order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of the Corporation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 of 2013 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The amount of compensation awarded and all other charges incurred in the acquisition of any such property shall, subject to all other provisions of this Act, be forthwith paid by the Commissioner and thereupon the said property shall vest in the Corporation. Thus, 2nd respondent shall follow the aforesaid procedure.
21. Any acquisition of land by the 2nd respondent without following the aforesaid mandatory procedure is illegal as held by this Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2, Velisetty Deva Kumar vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh 3 and Church of South India Trust Association (supra).
2 2001 (3) ALD 173 3 2000 (3) ALD 407 KL,J wp_10026_2024 15
22. In the light of the same and principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 06.11.2017 to the ACP, Circle-6 GHMC, Rajendranagar stating that as per the request of MLA, Rajendranagar, he is giving consent to hand over the land to an extent of 1560 Sq. yards subject to the condition that "suitable compensation has to be paid at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per Sq. yard."
23. Thus, vide the aforesaid letter, the petitioner specifically stated that he has given consent on the request made by local MLA on the condition of payment of suitable compensation, at the rate of 8,000/- per Sq. yard and he requested the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation 'as early as possible'.
24. Perusal of record also would reveal that vide letter dated 27.06.2016, 2nd respondent informed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District that the Local MLA submitted a representation dated 18.06.2015 for the purpose of construction of Bathukamma platform and also other cultural programmes in the open land i.e., admeasuring 2060 Sq. yards in Sy.No.93/A situated at Mailardevpally Village, KL,J wp_10026_2024 16 Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District organized by the Government of Telangana.
25. He has also referred the names of M.Jagaeesh Reddy, owner of land admeasuring 1560 Sq. yards and Amanchi Sunil Kumar, owner of land admeasuring 500 Sq. yards. It is further stated that the owners of the land agreed to part with the above said land for the said purpose subject to payment of suitable compensation.
26. Thus, local MLA requested the Collector and also GHMC to acquire the land for the said purpose. On receipt of the said representation, vide proceedings dated 02.09.2015, while enclosing copy of the said representation of local MLA dated 18.06.2015, the District Collector requested the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar to go through the contents of the communication in detail and to enquire into with reference to the record and the ground position of the site and submit report duly obtaining the written consent of the pattadar with probable cost of the land by keeping in view of the Land Procurement Scheme Launched by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No.123 dated 30.07.2015 to proceed further with the matter immediately.
KL,J wp_10026_2024 17
27. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra Nagar Mandal has conducted the joint inspection along with Executive Engineer, North Tank Division, Buddhabhavan and Assistant City Planner, Circle-6, GHMC, Hyderabad. The file was forwarded to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad to offer his remarks on the ownership title and status of the land. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad has reported that the proposed site is adjacent to 'Pallecheruvu' and it is covered in Sy.No.93/A, which is paid land as per Pahani and Pattadar name was mentioned as A.Naresh Kumar in Col.No.12 and as per the documents produced by the applicant Sri M.Prabhakar Reddy has purchased the said property from A.Naresh Kumar to an extent of 1560 Sq. yards.
28. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent in the said letter dated 27.06.2016 that the land owner one M.Prabhakar Reddy i.e., the petitioner herein has given consent to the GHMC agreeing to hand over the said land subject on the condition that the suitable land compensation has to be paid as per the present market value in the area and as per the new Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013.
KL,J wp_10026_2024 18
29. Stating so, the 2nd respondent has submitted proposals to the District Collector, Rangareddy District.
30. As per the Market Value Certificate dated 06.11.2017 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, the market value as on the said date with regard to the land in Sy.No.93/A of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is Rs.4,000/- per square yard.
31. Vide his letter dated 06.11.2017 though the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to settle the matter as early as possible, 2nd respondent slept over almost six years.
32. Vide letter dated 18.12.2018, the petitioner informed the 2nd respondent that he is willing to accept the TDR Certificate as per the Act to the extent of the affected area of the subject property i.e., 40% out of total area. Hence, he requested the 2nd respondent to pay compensation in terms money in so far as 60% of the subject land and issue TDR Certificate in respect of balance 40% out of total land at an earliest. Even then, the 2nd respondent did not act upon early. 2nd respondent has paid compensation of Rs.74,88,000/- vide check No.498369 dated 08.06.2023 and TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023.
KL,J wp_10026_2024 19 Thus, there is abnormal delay in completing the acquisition process. The said delay is explained by 2nd respondent. The same cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
33. According to the 2nd respondent, as requested by the petitioner vide his representation dated 18.12.2018, he has calculated compensation in respect of 60% of the land i.e., 936 Sq. yards and paid total compensation amount i.e., 74,88,000/- on 08.06.2023 vide cheque No.498369 considering the market value as on 06.11.2017. He has also issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023 in respect of balance 40% of the land i.e., 624 Sq. yards at the rate of 200%. Thus, according to the petitioner, the said calculation is in violation of the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act and also G.O.Ms.No.330, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.II(i)) Department, dated 28.12.2017.
34. As per the Market Value Certificate dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Sub Registrar, Rajendra Nagar, the market value in respect of the land in Sy.No.93/A is Rs.8100/- per square yard. Therefore, 2nd respondent calculated the market value as on 06.11.2017, but paid the compensation only on 08.06.2023. The same is arbitrary and illegal.
KL,J wp_10026_2024 20
35. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also contended that, though consent letter was dated 06.11.2017, compensation was paid on 08.06.2023 and TDR was issued only on 09.11.2023. He has also specifically contended that the GHMC authorities have issued TDR Certificate only on 09.11.2023 by calculating at the rate of 40% of the land.
36. Thus, according to the petitioner, the entire action of respondent No.2 in making the aforesaid payment is in violation of the procedure laid down under section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
37. As discussed supra, though the 2nd respondent obtained consent letters dated 06.11.2017 and 18.12.2018 from the petitioner on the condition of payment of suitable compensation i.e., Rs.8,000/- per square yard (as on the said date, market value is Rs.4,000/- per Square yard) and settle the dispute as early as possible, 2nd respondent did not acquire the said property by following procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and made payment in respect of 60% of the subject property and issued TDR Certificate in respect of 40% of the subject property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.330, dated KL,J wp_10026_2024 21 28.12.2017. The 2nd respondent did not obtain any agreement from the petitioner in terms of Section 146(1) of the GHMC Act, 1955.
38. Perusal of record also would reveal that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.74,88,000/- under protest and he has submitted a letter to 2nd respondent that effect. 2nd respondent has also admitted the said fact in the counter affidavit. Thus, the 2nd respondent paid the compensation in utter violation of the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. The 2nd respondent did not enter into an agreement with regard to acquisition of the said land and he has not paid the compensation in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 by considering the market value. The 2nd respondent cannot pay compensation on 08.06.2023 i.e., after seven years by considering the market value as on the date of the said consent letter i.e. 06.11.2017. Thus, the entire procedure adapted by the 2nd respondent is in violation of procedure under Section 146 of the GHMC Ac, 1955.
39. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that he gave the aforesaid consent letters on the pressure of local MLA. The said fact was also mentioned by 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated KL,J wp_10026_2024 22 27.06.2016 and he has referred representation dated 18.06.2015 of local MLA.
40. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has specifically stated that he has received compensation cheque bearing No.498369 dated 08.06.2023.
41. A perusal of the said affidavit, declaration and general power of attorney of the petitioner would reveal that the 2nd respondent has taken formats with blanks and filled the same later. In the declaration- cum-undertaking, it is mentioned that the petitioner handing over the physical possession of the subject property for the purpose of 'road widening affected area of its property' and there is no threat or coercion by any one.
42. The officials of the 2nd respondent obtained the said declaration- cum-undertaking without application of mind. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire action of the 2nd respondent in trying to acquire the land of the petitioner, payment of the aforesaid compensation and TDR Certificate is in violation of the procedure laid KL,J wp_10026_2024 23 down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. Therefore, the same is declared as illegal.
43. The proposal of respondent No. 2 for construction of Bathukamma platform and acquisition of land for cultural activities is highly appreciable. At the same time, he has to strictly follow the procedure under GHMC Act, 1955 or Act 30 of 2013, failing which it amounts to violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
44. It is apt to note that right to property is a human right as also a constitutional right though it is not a fundamental right. A person cannot be deprived of his property. If the State intends to appropriate a private property without the owner's consent by acting under the statutory provisions for compulsory acquisition, the procedure authorized by law has to be mandatorily and compulsory followed.
45. It is also apt to note that the right to pay compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it can be inferred in that Article as held by KL,J wp_10026_2024 24 the Apex Court in K.T.Plantation Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka 4.
46. Thus, the right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and a human right as held by the Apex Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbai Patel and others 5. In view of the mandate and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The said principle was also reiterated by the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and others 6.
47. As discussed supra, in the present case, 2nd respondent did not follow the said mandatory procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act. Therefore, the entire action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal.
4 2011 9 SCC 1 5 (2008) 4 SCC 649 6 Manu/SC/0580/2020 = (2020) 9 SCC 356 KL,J wp_10026_2024 25
48. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he has not handed over the subject property and it is open land. Photographs filed by both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent would also reveal the said fact.
49. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.74,88,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of encashment of the cheque till the date of payment to the 2nd respondent within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, 2nd respondent shall initiate procedure afresh for acquisition of the subject property by strictly following the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1925 or Act 30 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 30.12.2024 LPD/Vvr