The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner alleging his property was acquired for road widening without compensation, finding the petition lacked merit as respondents denied acquisition based on undisputed undisputed facts and lack of a reply affidavit.
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.12505 2004
ORDER:
The petitioner statedly is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.37.00 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.663 and 664 of Shamshabad Village in Ranga Reddy District. It appears, he sold an extent of Acs.26.00 to several persons retaining Acs.11.00. His land in Survey No.663 is abutting National High Way No.7 (N.H.7). The respondents proposed to widen N.H.7. Petitioner alleges that land to an extent of Acs.3.00 in Survey No.663 was proposed for widening and officials promised him that necessary compensation will be paid and the land will be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). He further alleges that the land was subsequently taken for widening the road. The petitioner approached the respondents for payment of compensation, in vain. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition to direct the respondents to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and pay compensation. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner that the petitioner’s land was taken for widening the road. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder.
It is submitted that the Respondents have never informed the Petitioner that the land in Sy. Nos.663 and 664 to an extent of Ac.3.00 is required for widening the road and that the said land is being acquired. The contention of the Petitioner that the possession of the land in Sy. Nos.663 and 664 to an extent of Ac.3-00 was taken possession is not correct. In fact the Respondents have taken possession of the land to an extent of Ac. 1-38½ cents in Sy. Nos. 681 etc., which was acquired for the purpose of road widening and also laying of 4 lines. Thereafter an Errata was issued to the Draft Notification acquiring an extent of 3411 Sq.yards of village site situated at Siddhanti village. The Petitioner has nothing to do with the same. The Petitioner’s land has not been acquired by the Respondents and the Petitioner was never informed by the Respondents that his land in Sy. Nos. 663 and 664 to an extent of Ac.3-00 will be acquired for the purpose of road widening.
(emphasis supplied)
The Manager of the third respondent has also filed counter affidavit denying the petitioner’s allegation that the land in Survey No.663 was taken for widening the road. It is stated that the petitioner’s land in Survey No. 663 is situated on the right side in the reach from 15.040 K.M. to 15.095 K.M. of N.H.7. The right of way was handed over to third respondent by A.P.P.W.D. Officers in the said reach to the extent of 60 Mtrs. i.e., 30 Mtrs. from the Central line of existing N.H.7, 24Mtrs., i.e., 12 Mtrs., on either side of the central line has been laid in the reach. That was handed over by the State P.W.D. and there is no requirement to trespass into the private property beyond the width of the land handed over by the State P.W.D.
The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter averments of the first respondent and the third respondent. This only shows that the counter averment that the petitioner’s land was not taken for the purpose of widening N.H.7 stands un-rebutted.
Further the Assistant Government Pleader has placed before this Court the award proceedings of the fourth respondent being No. I/1516/2001 dated 24.7.2003 which shows that the land in Survey Nos.679 to 682 and 686 admeasuring Acs.2.14½ was only taken at the concerned reach of N.H.7 and the petitioner’s land was not at all required.
This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) and having regard to the pleadings, this Court considered the submissions made across the bar and is convinced that the petitioner himself is not clear as to whether his land has been acquired/taken over by the third respondent for widening of the road. When the third respondent categorically made a statement that that the road was laid/widened on the land handed over by the Government of Andhra Pradesh officials and that the first respondent stated that the land in Survey No.663 was not all taken for widening the road, the matter is certainly in the realm of fact and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondents, especially, when there is no reply affidavit denying the same.
In view of the same, the writ petition for the above reasons has to be held to be devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_______________ (V.V.S. RAO,J)
3rd February, 2011
pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's land was acquired or taken for widening National Highway No.7.
Whether the writ petition seeking a declaration of acquisition and compensation is maintainable.
Proprietor of Survey Nos. 663 and 664, Shamshabad
State of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
