Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hmda in The Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs M.Sanjeev Reddy And Another on 7 January, 2020Matching Fragments
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) filed this petition to condone the delay of 1318 days in preferring the appeal.
2. The petitioner herein preferred the aforesaid appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the order dated 02.09.2015 passed in LAOP No.1322 of 2008 by the Special Sessions Judge for trail of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. According to the petitioner, the trial Court enhanced the compensation by almost more than 5½ times.
4. According to the petitioner, they have acquired the land for the purpose of ORR Project to ease the traffic congestions. The entire acquisition was in the interests of public. The enhancement is more than five times which is not reasonable. Hence, they have preferred the appeal challenging the said judgment and decree in LAOP No.1322 of 2008 with delay.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that after passing the judgment and decree, their office filed Copy Application for obtaining certified copies. The connected Court file was sent to the High Court, the appeal is being filed as per the photostat copy of the judgment and decree. The same was put to scrutiny and legal opinion whether to file an appeal or not. Thereafter, the authorities have taken a decision to prefer an appeal. After bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, there is acute shortage of staff in HMDA and the entire office is administered with 1/3rd staff alone. Therefore, for processing the case file as well as for preferring the appeal including getting the permissions and obtaining the legal opinion, time has been 3 MSR,J & KL,J I.A. No.1 of 2019 in/and LAAS No.93 of 2019 consumed and thereby a delay of 1318 days was caused in preferring the appeal.
10. Heard Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner - HMDA and Mr. C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
11. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the land of the respondents was acquired by the petitioner in the year 2006 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 24.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents - claimants made an 5 MSR,J & KL,J I.A. No.1 of 2019 in/and LAAS No.93 of 2019 application to the Land Acquisition officer, who in turn referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, on consideration of evidence both oral and documentary, passed a judgment on 02.09.2015 in LAOP No.1322 of 2008 enhancing the compensation at Rs.1200/- per square yard from Rs.10,00,000/- per acre with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on the enhanced compensation and also interest @ 9% per annum from 26.11.2007 till realization.
16. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioner - appellant - HMDA is a Statutory Body created under HMDA Act, 2008. The main objects of the said Authority are to undertake preparation of Metropolitan Development and Investment Plan, prioritize the implementation of the said Plan, execution of projects and schemes through Action Plans for any sector or area of the Metropolitan Region and other incidental activities. It also responsible for undertaking preparation of Metropolitan Development Plan and Investment Plan and an Infrastructure Development Plan, undertake or promote townships development, land pooling schemes and development schemes, encourage Private Public Partnership for various development projects, undertake development of circulation network, transportation facilities, area level social and other amenities and facilities and other planning and development matters. The petitioner authority is having sources of finances including Metropolitan Development Fund and Seed Capital, a Revolving Fund for the purpose of performing its functions. The petitioner - appellant 12 MSR,J & KL,J I.A. No.1 of 2019 in/and LAAS No.93 of 2019 authority is also having its own hierarchy of employees including legal department and Standing Counsel for various Courts.