Allowed

D. John Samuel S/o. David v. Chairman/Executive Director, Ntpc, Mch Complex

Telangana HC21 Aug 2012WA/1139/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ appeal, setting aside an order dismissing a petition concerning land acquisition for road widening. The court held that affected owners are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and directed authorities to provide rehabilitation within four months. Previously, they were only given additional FSI benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition No.22381 of 2000 set aside. Appellants to be provided alternative sites or compensation under the Land Acquisition Act within four months.

D. John Samuel S/o. David Vs Chairman/Executive Director… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶4

WRIT APPEAL No.1139 of 2009

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶6

Heard Mr. P.Mani Sahil, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent.

¶7

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition No.22381 of 2000 filed by the appellants as the petitioners.

¶8

Appellants had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the action of the respondents in not providing alternative sites to the appellants in lieu of acquisition of their properties situated at Panchmohalla, Hyderabad, for the purpose of road widening from Charminar to Shalibanda. Appellants further sought for a direction to the

¶9

¶10

respondents to forthwith allot alternative sites to the appellants.

¶11

The writ petition was contested by respondent Nos.1 & 2 by filing two counter affidavits through the Assistant City Planners, Circle – 2. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that respondents had promised the appellants at the time of acquiring buildings that appellants would be provided alternative sites. Therefore appellants are entitled to alternative sites as well.

¶12

On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that appellants have availed the benefit of additional FSI by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.483 dated 24.08.1998. Therefore, they were not entitled to any further benefits and in respect of those appellants who had parted with 60% or more than 60% of their buildings, as Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was not in a position to provide any alternative site, it was prepared to pay compensation in the affected areas as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶13

¶14

On the above basis, learned Single Judge held that all the appellants who had lost 60% or more of their property in the road widening project, would be entitled to the benefit of compensation provided by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad i.e., compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act for that portion of the property affected in the road widening. It was clarified that appellants would also construct the buildings in the remaining area as per the rules in force. While disposing of the writ petition, learned Single Judge held that those of the appellants who had already availed the benefit of additional FSI, would not be entitled to the benefit given in the said order.

¶15

From the material papers, we find that Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.2, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had issued a letter dated 16.12.1997 stating that Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had proposed to rehabilitate the affected persons under the Charminar - Falaknuma Road Widening Scheme. Persons losing their entire properties or atleast 60% of the properties would be

¶16

¶17

provided alternative sites for rehabilitation. Persons partially affected would be permitted to take up reconstruction on the remaining portion of their land.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and

¶19

on due consideration, we are of the view that if the buildings of the appellants have been acquired for the road widening project, they are entitled to compensation for such acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, we direct the appellants to take necessary steps as per letter dated 16.12.2009 as well as under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to provide compensation to the affected appellants besides allowing them to reconstruct the remaining portion of the buildings beyond acquisition. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶20

Subject to the above, order dated 12.12.2007 passed in W.P.No.22381 of 2000 is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

¶21

¶22

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

¶24

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 19.10.2022 MRM

D. John Samuel S/o. David v. Chairman/Executive Director, Ntpc, Mch Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. John Samuel S/o. David v. Chairman/Executive Director, Ntpc, Mch Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goparaju Krishna Venamma, Vs Sri Kondandaramanjaneya Swamy Temple

T. Murali Mohan Rao, Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation

Smt. K. Laxmamma, Died per Lr Vs The Municipal Administration Department

Kotiparthuni Vishwanatham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M.A. Wadood Vs The Commissioner

Pydi Balaraju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh