Dismissed

Badham Shiva Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

Telangana HC2 Mar 2012WP/8563/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary laying of a national highway beyond the acquired land width. The judgment held that petitioners who failed to appear before the competent authority to object to acquisition or claim compensation cannot subsequently challenge the extent of land acquired via writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed, dismissed as infructuous, or disposed of.

Badham Shiva Reddy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 8563 OF 2010

¶3

DATED 2nd March, 2012

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Badham Shiva Reddy and ors

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer/LAO, Bhongir, Nalgonda Dist and ors

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 8563 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners claiming to be the owners and possessors of the agricultural lands, houses and house sites situated at Guduru village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda, filed this Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in laying a road for the purpose of

¶14

National Highway No. 202 leading from Hyderabad to Yadagiri , from KM 30,000 to Km.54.000 in excess of the land acquired by respondents 2 and 3 and violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act 1956 ( for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highway (Department of RT & Highways) issued a notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act on 5.5.2008 for laying four line National High Way Road No.202 from KM.30/0 to 54/0 (Hyderabad-Yadagiri Road) in Nalgonda District. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondents 2 to 4 are trying to lay road on either side of the existing road beyond 166 feet in width arbitrarily and contrary to the acquired extent of land in as much as the respondents acquired only 100 feet width in the lands of the petitioners. It is their further complaint that though representations dated 24.2.2010, 3.5.2010, 20.10.2010, 22.01.2011 and 1.2.2011 were submitted by them to the respondents, no action was taken thereon. It is also stated that the fourth respondent addressed letters to the second respondent, fifth respondent and the seventh respondent as to the losing of 34 feet land additionally by the petitioners as respondents are laying 200 feet road. Notwithstanding the above letters, no

¶16

action in that regard was taken by the respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1, 5 and 6 stating that after following the due procedure, notification under Section 3-A of the Act was issued and published in the Gazettee on 27.11.2009 and the same was also notified through paper publication on 31.12.2009, to which none of the petitioners have filed their objections to the said acquisition within 21 days. Subsequently notification under Section 3-G of the Act was published in the newspapers on Nil, June, 2010 and 8.6.2010, 29.6.2010 requesting the aggrieved land owners to appear before the competent authority for submission of their claims/ objections, to which also, they failed to appear before it and therefore the land value was determined on the basis of the sale transactions. Thereafter notices in Forms-6 and 7 were served on the land losers with a request to appear on 29.6.2010 along with their title deeds of the land under acquisition. Basing on their claims and statements, Award dated 01.01.2011 was passed and compensation was paid to the land losers. While denying the contention of the petitioners that the actual existing road as per revenue records and village map is only 87 links which is equivalent to 57 feets, it is stated that the actual

¶18

existing road width is 100 feet and another 100 feet road is proposed to make the total width of the road of 200 feet.

¶19

Respondents 2 and 3 also filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and making averments similar to those mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1,5 and 6.

¶20

Heard both sides. Perused the case.

¶21

Admittedly, after following the due procedure, a notification under Section 3-A of the Act was published in the Gazettee on 27.11.2009 and the same was published in the ‘Andhra Jyohti’ and ‘The Hindu’ newspapers on 31.12.2009. It seems that none of the petitioners had filed their objections within 21 days time limit. Thereafter, subsequent notification under Section 3-G of the Act was published in the ‘Vaartha’ and ‘the Hindu Newspapers on Nil, June 2010 and 8.6.2010 respectively specifically notifying the date 29.06.2010 to appear before the competent authority for submission of claima and objections. However, the petitioners failed to appear before the competent authority on the said date. Thereupon, on the basis of sale transactions , land value was determined and notices in Forms-6 and 7 were served on the land losers to appear on 29.06.2010 with their title deeds in respect of the lands

¶22

acquired and on the basis of the claim statements, an Award was passed on 01.01.2011. Pursuant thereto, it appears that compensation was also paid to the land losers. As having failed to avail the opportunity afforded under the provisions of Sections 3-A and 3-G of the Act, but having appeared before the competent authority pursuant to the notice issued in Form Nos.6 & 7 for claiming compensation, now they cannot turn a round and contend that the respondent authorities have tried to lay the road beyond the actual acquisition of the land.

¶23

Even if they were really aggrieved by the Award dated 1.1.2011, nothing prevented them to invoke necessary remedy under the law either for enhancement of compensation or redressal of their grievance. However, they did not do so. The respondents have specifically denied in their counter affidavits that the existing road is 87 links which is equivalent to 57 feet and the respondents are trying to lay the road with the width of 200 feet contrary to the proposed lay and width upto 166 feet as alleged by the petitioners. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the respondent National High Way authorities clearly stated that the existing road is 100 feet width and a further 100 feet land has been acquired from the border point of the existing road as peg marked by the

¶24

requisition authority so as to make the road of 200 feet width. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after compensation was paid to the land losers/owners, the acquired land has been vested with the Central Government and therefore the petitioners have no right in challenging the notification at this stage. It is the case of the petitioner that several representations were submitted by them but no action has been taken thereon. It may be noticed here that the petitioners failed to avail of the opportunities afforded to them under the provisions of the Act at the earliest point of time. The reasons for not availing of such opportunities are not forthcoming. It is however not the case of the petitioners that there was any procedural lapase on the part of the respondent authorities in acquiring the subject land. It may be remembered that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. Therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved by insufficiency of compensation or any other grievance, for redressal, they are at liberty to avail such other remedies that are available to them under law

¶25

Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto,

¶26

WVMP.Nos. 95 of 2012 and 4468 of 2011 are closed and WPMP.Nos.11786 of 2011 and 10640 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous and WPMP.No. 170 of 2012 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶28

Dated 2^nd March, 2012. Msnro

Badham Shiva Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badham Shiva Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer

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

M/s. Ncs Sugars Limited, Vs Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

M/s. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Vs Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

M/s. Hyderabad Securities and Enterprises Ltd. Vs The Securities and Exchange Board of India

Smt. Kamisetty Kalavathi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Rama Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its secretary

N.Seshaiah Vs Union of India Rep.byits Managing Director