Dismissed

Afzulunnisa Begum and 2 Ors. v. Prl. Secy., Rev. and 2 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Oct 2022WP/1115/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of acquired land. Relying on V. Chandrasekaran, the Court held that once land vests in the State after an award, it cannot be divested. The claim was also rejected as it concerned different survey numbers than those in the earlier quashed order and was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

Afzulunnisa Begum and 2 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. and… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

W.P.1115 of 2017

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

“To issue any writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of 2nd and 3rd Respondents from releasing the property in T.S.No.194/3 (Old R.S.N.234), Patha Srirakulam Ward, Collector Bungalow Road, Near Z.P.Srikakulam now in Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits in view of the orders of this Honble Court in W.P.No.13730/1986 dated 01.09.1988 quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings covered by Award No.12/86 dated 22.09.1986 including Sec. 4(1) Notification issued by 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.2730/83 B3 dated 25.02.1983 as illegal, unjustifiable, lack of bona fides, arbitrary, colourable and violative of principles of natural justice.”

¶6

This Court has heard Sri K.S.Gopal Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, standing counsel for respondent No.3Housing Board and Sri V.Ragunath Kumar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners rests his arguments

¶8

on the proposition of law that the section 4(1) notification issued on 19.08.1983 under the Land Acquisition Act has

¶9

¶10

been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.13730 of 1986.

¶11

It is his contention that the petitioners are the successors in interest of Mohd. Zakriya Khan. Mohd. Zakriya Khan was issued the pattadar pass book in 1996. He died in 2009 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. Since then, the petitioners were trying to secure the release of the property from land acquisition because in W.P.No.13730 of 1986, the high Court has set aside the entire land acquisition proceedings. He draws the attention of the Court to the order passed by the high Court and points out that once the 4(1) notification was quashed, the entire land acquisition proceedings would fall to the ground. In all fairness, he submits that some misconceived writ petitions were filed by the writ petitioners earlier but the fact remains that the land was not actually, physically acquired by the respondents. Relying upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others¹ , the learned senior counsel argues that when a person is deprived of his right to

¶12

1 2022 Livelaw (SC) 347

¶13

¶14

property under Article 300-A, the Court should take a liberal attitude beyond the question of delay since a person is deprived of his value rights in private property. He points out that when there is arbitrary State action, this Court must and should interfere. He also points out earlier cases which are referred to in this decision to show that if the cause for justice is so compelling, the Court should interfere and grant appropriate relief. He points out that in the case cited by him, the State was directed to treat the subject lands as the acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation. In the case on hand, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to redelivery. He contends that there is no serious dispute about their title to the property. Learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment in Abhey Ram (dead) by Lrs. And others

¶15

v. Union of India and others² to argue that once the notification is quashed for certain survey numbers it applies to all survey numbers and the other parties who are not before the writ Court in W.P.No.13730 of 1986.

¶16

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader submits that in W.P.No.13730 of 1986, the issue related to

¶17

2 (1997) 5 SCC 421

¶18

¶19

T.S.Nos.189/1, 189/3 and 190/1 corresponding to R.S.No.246/1, 246/2 and 247/1 only. It is his contention that the present petitioners are claiming rights in property in T.S.No.194/3 old R.S.No.234 and that therefore order in the writ petition will not enure to their benefit. He points out that the claim of the petitioners is extremely stale and the writ petition itself states that the award was passed on 22.09.1986. It is his contention that in view of the settled law, the writ filed in 2017 is patently barred by time.

¶20

Learned Government Pleader also points out that the land in question has been handed over to the Housing Board, which has constructed a colony in the said land. He states that physical possession was taken and handed over to the A.P. Housing Board and its beneficiaries are very much settled in the said housing colony.

¶21

In continuation, Sri Srinivasan for the APHB argues the matter at length. He also submits that the land was acquired three decades prior to the filing of the counter. Possession was given on 21.05.1987. He relies upon the delivery receipt annexed to the counter filed by the 2^nd respondent. He also submits that the claim is hopelessly barred by time. He

¶22

¶23

draws the attention of the Court to the tabular statement in the counter and submits that land in Sy.No.194/3 is also covered by the Award No.12/86. Thereafter, layout plan 8/93 was obtained from the DTCP and houses were also constructed. He therefore submits that the beneficiaries are in settled possession. They are not added as parties to the proceedings also. Therefore, stresses upon the delay and argues once the award is passed, the property vests in the State and the petitioners cannot claim redelivery. He relies upon various paras in his counter affidavit and argues the matter at length.

¶24

This Court after considering the submissions notices that there is no dispute about the fact that an award was in fact passed. The writ petition itself clearly states in para 4 that the lands belonging to the Mohd. Zakriya Khan were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under award No.12/86 but he states that only symbolic paper possession was given.

¶25

On the other hand, counters filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 clearly show that the physical delivery of the property was affected on 21.05.1987 and the delivery receipt

¶26

¶27

is also filed as exhibit. A copy of the award in 12/86 is clearly filed and the lands in Sy.No.194/3 were acquired by paying compensation of Rs.3,24,462/-. The owner applied through his counsel and also sought for deletion of the lands from the acquisition, but the Land Acquisition Officer clearly held that improvements were made after the publication of the 4(1) notification and therefore, the withdrawal of the land from the acquisition does not arise. The contention of the owner that he has sold away land in Sy.No.194/3 by various sale deeds was also noted. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer realized that there is a dispute to the property including title dispute and also apportionment. Hence, the matter was referred to a civil Court to determine the title. It was noted clearly that the owner did not clearly state that what is the extent sold and what is the extent remaining with him.

¶28

Apart from this, counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 also supports the case of the respondent-State. No documentary evidence is filed to contradict the contentions urged. A rejoinder is also not filed to contradict the same. It is apparent that the land has vested in the State as the acquisition proceedings are completed.

¶29

¶30

This Court notices that the case of V.Chandrasekaran

¶31

and others v. the Administrative Officer and others³ has reiterated the legal position and held that once the land vests in the State, it cannot divested and property cannot be given back.

¶32

Lastly, the submission of the learned counsel that the entire 4(1) proceedings were quashed does not also appear to be very correct. In the said writ petition (W.P.No.13730 of 1986), the property in question was limited to T.S.No.189/1, 189/3, 190/1. The present claim is for property in Sy.No.194/3. According to the writ affidavit itself, the award was passed on 22.09.1986 (Award No.12/86). The order in W.P.No.13730 of 1986 was passed on 01.09.1988, which is almost two years after the award was passed. Therefore, on facts also, this Court holds that the order in W.P.No.13730 of 1986 will not inure to the benefit of petitioners as it does not relate to the survey number which the petitioners claim. Even otherwise, the award was passed two years before the order was passed in the writ petition mentioned above.

¶33