The petitioner challenged a request for consent to surrender land for road widening. The single-judge court held that the request was consensual and upheld the Corporation's right to initiate land acquisition proceedings if consent is refused.
Petitioner's Writ Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.23150 OF 2005
DATED:27.10.2005
Between: Mulpur Raju Suresh Kumar And Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner Visakhapatnam and another
…Petitioner
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.23150 OF 2005
ORDER:
The petitioner is owner of houses bearing D.Nos.14-37-41, 14-37-41/1, 1437-41/1A at Krishna Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The respondent sent a communication on 6.7.2005 asking the petitioner to give consent for surrendering an extent of 60.55 Sq.yards as per the plan for widening the road from Collector Office to Z.P.Road. The petitioner states that he is not willing to give his consent and that any action on the part of Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation (VMC) without due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be illegal.
VMC sought consent of the owner for advance possession in larger public interest. It does not, however, mean that in the event of owner of the property not
willing to give consent, the respondent VMC would resort to high-handed action. In such case, the VMC has to necessarily resort to provisions of Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). In Srichand Rohra v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad while dealing with similar matter, this Court made the following observations.
A reading of the said letter does not in any way indicate that there is any truth in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. What was sought to by issuing such letter is, a request was made to the landlords to give consent to handover advanced possession in the larger public interest. It was clearly informed that MCH will pay compensation to the effected structures as per the Rules and extent all benefits as per the Rules. If landlord desires to avail the benefits to be extended by the MCH on his own volition the landlord may give consent. If the landlord is not willing the letter nowhere compels one to part with the land for widening the road in which event as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel the MCH will have to resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Learned Standing Counsel for VMC submits that if the land owner is not agreed under private negotiations, land acquisition proposals will be taken up as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). Therefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived. If the petitioner is not given his consent, it is always open to VMC to initiate action under Section 147 of the Act and acquire the property of the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has allegedly not given his willingness/consent to cooperate with the VMC for the road widening project. Needless to mention that Corporation has to initiate action under the provisions of LA Act. Till then, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to enjoy the property.
The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.10.2005
bnr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Municipal Corporation can compel consent for surrender of land without initiating land acquisition proceedings under Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Whether the petitioner's refusal to give consent for road widening invites illegal action by the Corporation without following due process.
Whether the petitioner can be deprived of property rights before the initiation of land acquisition proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Srichand Rohra v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of HyderabadExplained¶12
Srichand Rohra v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mulpur Raju Suresh Kumar
Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
V.V.S.Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
