This writ appeal was dismissed as the writ petitioner is not the owner of the land since the original owners had voluntarily left the road for public purpose decades ago; thus, no acquisition proceedings were needed.
Appeal dismissed; no direction to initiate land acquisition proceedings; 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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.82 OF 2011
DATED:17.8.2012
Between: Smt. K. Laxmamma [(died) represented By K. Shankar Goud (as appellant No.2)
… Appellants
And
The Municipal Administration Department Rep. By its Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.82 OF 2011
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.14.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P. No.1368 of 2005.
The case of the appellant – writ petitioner in the writ petition was that she is a owner and possessor of Ac.3.12 gts. of land in Sy. Nos.552 and 553 of Sanga Reddy, Medak District. It is her grievance that in order to connect the adjoining colonies near the area, respondents laid a cement concrete road from her above said land without initiating any proceedings for land acquisition. Respondent No.2 filed a counter and an additional counter in the writ petition mainly stating that the concrete cement road was laid only on the existing road for which writ petitioner cannot have any grievance. The Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the matter dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the writ appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.
The contention of the writ petitioner that a cement concrete road is laid by the respondents from her land without initiating any proceedings for land acquisition is denied by respondent No.2 by filing an additional counter affidavit in the writ petition, wherein he categorically stated as under:
“It is submitted that this Hon’ble High Court by an order dt.2.12.2009 directed to file additional counter with regard to
the nature of the road and from which period the earlier road was existing. The said land Ac.3.12 guntas in Sy. Nos.552 and 553 originally belongs to Mr. Gangari Pochaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Mr. Gangari Durgaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Mr. Gangari Ramchander, S/o. Lakshmaiah and Mrs. Gangari Balamma, W/o. G. Lakshmaiah. Around 30 years back the Harijanawada was formed wherein the Government had issued house site pattas to the poor people in the adjoining land. The original owners of the land in Sy. Nos.552 and 553 had voluntarily left the kutcha 20 feet road for the public purpose. In the year 2004, the 2nd respondent laid the C.C. (cement concrete) road on existing gravel road with the municipal funds. When the petitioner is not the owner, payment of compensation does not arise.”
Therefore, it is evident that the road, which is the subject matter of the litigation, has been in existence for the last thirty years, and in the year 2004, the respondents have laid concrete road on the existing gravel road. For the last thirty years, the writ petitioner did not raise any objection in respect thereof. Now the writ petitioner cannot seek any direction to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). In the circumstances, we see no reason to pass any order in favour of the appellants. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. We find no merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not stand in the way of the appellants, if they have any other legal recourse in the matter. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 17.8.2012
bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants can seek direction to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for a road laid on land they claim to own.
Whether the act of laying a cement concrete road on an existing gravel road without initiating acquisition proceedings constituted an illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. K. Laxmamma (died) represented By K. Shankar Goud
The Municipal Administration Department Rep. By its Secretary, Government of A.P.
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
