Dismissed

The District Collector, hyderabad District v. R.Dasharath Mohan Lal

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022WA/1114/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was dismissed. The bench held that public authorities cannot challenge orders directing payment of compensation for previously acquired land. The court affirmed the lower court's direction for payment and vacated interim suspension.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge within four weeks.

The District Collector, hyderabad District Vs R.Dasharath… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1114 0F 2004

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the^{order dated} 06.01.2004 inWP.No.2155l2OO1 on thefile of^{the High Court.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad 2. The Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition^(MCH), 6th^{Floor,Municipal} complex'Tankbund'Hyderabad ...A''ELLANTS/RES'.NDENTSTNwp

¶9

AND

¶10

R.Dasharath [Mohan Lal, S/o Chander^{Mohan Lal}

¶11

R.Lalith Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal

¶12

R.Bharat Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan^Lal

¶13

R.Eshwar Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan^Lal

¶14

R.Vinod Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan^Lal

¶15

R.Adesh Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan^Lal

¶16

R.Mahesh Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal

¶17

(All Holder are V.satyanarayana H.No.23-1-74175, S/o Charminar East, Hyderabad Pataiah^{65 yrs, FyoH.No.8-3-228i657, Rahmath} rgp qyll.'e.g_G!{ . Nagar' Hyd-45

¶18

....REspoNDENTS/pETrroNERs rN wp 8. The Commissioner MCH, Municipal Coro,"1:.JESISHBEiuTf,o=r"o*DENr No. 1

¶19

LA. NO: 2 O F 2004(WAMP. NO: 2048 OF²⁰⁰⁴ )

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in} the^{circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the order dt.^06101l2OO4 in^{WP.No.2155/2001passed by the learned} single Judge, Pending disposal^of the^WA

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 200 5(WAMP.^{NO: 408} OF^2005):

¶22

Between:

¶23

R. Pratap Mohan Lal^{S/o. Bindu} Basni Pershad 2. R. Bihari Mohan Lal^{S/o. Bindu Basni Pershad}

¶24

¶25

R. Jagadish Mohan Lal S/o. Bindu Basni Pershad 4. R. Uday lMohan Lal S/o. Bindu Basni Pershad 5. R. Pramod Mohan Lal S/o. Bindu Basni Pershad 6. R. Prahlad Mohan Lal S/o. Suraj Mohan Lal 7. R. Vijay Mohan Lal S/o. Suraj lvlohan Lal o R. Santosh Mohan Lal S/o. Suraj Mohan Lal 9. R. Ashok Mohan Lal S/o. Suraj Mohan Lal 10 R. Suresh Mohan Lal S/o. Suraj Mohan Lal 11 R. Anand Mohan Lal S/o. Sree [Vlohan Lal 12 R. Subash Mohan Lal S/o,. Sree Mohan Lal 13 R. Pradeep Mohan Lal S/o. Sree Mohan Lal 14. R. Keerth Mohan Lal S/o. Shyam Mohan Lal 15. Dr. Sunitha Devi W/o. Late Jeevan Kumar Retd Doctor 16. All are Rl/o.23-1-74175, Charminar East, Hyderabad Represented by their GPA Holder V. Satyanarayana S/o. Pataiah, R/o.B-3-228l657, Rahmath Nagar' Hvderabad - 45 pRoposED ilEBltt*=fullys [El1'J"r[TJ AND 1. R.Dasharath Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal 2. R.Lalith Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal 3. R.Bharat Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal 4. R.Eshwar Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal 5. R.Vinod Mohan Lal, S/o Chander ttllohan Lal 6. R.Adesh Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal 7. R.Mahesh Mohan Lal, S/o Chander Mohan Lal

¶26

(All are H.No.23-1-74175, Charminar East, Hyderabad rep. by their GPA Holder V.Satyanarayana S/o Pataiah 65 yrs, Rl/o H.No.8-3-2281657, Rahmath Nagar, Hyd-45 ....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP s rhe commissioner MCH' Municipal "o'o''1:.JEsABHBEiuTf,t""orDENr^No.1 9. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad 1 0. The Special Dy. Colleitor, Land Acquisiti6n (MCH), 6th Floor, Municipal complex'Tankbund'Hyderabad ...RE',.NDENTS/A''ELLANT./rNWp Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the impleading petitioners as respondents no 9 to 23 in the array of writ appeal and also consequential amendment

¶27

Counsel for the Appellants: sri. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, GP for Assignments / ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondents: SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

/f,,| ./

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAI BHTIYAN

AND

ON'BLE T

W.A.No. 1114 of 2004

IUDGMENT' 4'er l,e Hoa bk rhe Chiet lntite Llt,al Bhront

¶36

This appeal is of the W r 2004 and pending for the last eighteen years. Today, when the matter is listed for hearing, Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, leamed Govemment Pleader

¶37

for Assignment appearing for the appellanm seeks adjoumment.

¶38

In view of the iong pendency and the order v,hich we propose to pass, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal.

¶39

This intra-coun appeal ls directed against the order dated 06.01.2004 passed by the leamed Single Judge allowing \frit Petition No.2155 of 2001.-

¶40

The related writ petition vras filed byrespondents No.1 to 7 seeking compensation for the land belonging to them acquired by Ae^{C,ommissioner,Municipal C-orporation of Hlderabad underthe} Andhi'a Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act,

¶41

)

¶42

1956 (briefly'the 1956 Act'hereinafter). The subject iand measures 44,359.66 square yards covered by Survey Nos.58, 59 and 60 situated at Bapunagar, S.RNagar, Hyderabad. It was contended that the aforesaid land was forcibly acquired without paying adequate compensation as per the statute.

¶43

5 Case of respondents No.1 to 7 was summed up in the following rnannen

¶44

"Late Rai Chander Mohan Lal, father of the petitioners herein, was the pattedar of Ac.10.20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.58, 59 and 60 of old Yousufguda village, Bapunagar, siruated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 1" respondent herein. According to the Town Suwey, it is in \X/ard No.7, Block 1. The 1* respondent published a notification in the gazette dated 10.09.1987 under Section 3(1) of the AP.Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 (for shon 'the Act), declaring the said land as slurn This was followed by a notice calling upon the owner of the land to show cause as to why it shouid not be acquired. The objecdons raised on behalf of the father of the petitioners did not appeai to the 1* respondent. tJltimately, a notificarion under Sub-section 2 of Section J o[ the Act wx published in rhe Gazette dared 21.02.1988. Thereby, the land in t-he said survey numberc admeasuring an exrent of 49322 square lards stood vested in the Govemment. The father of the petitioners died on 02.12.1995. T1ne complaint of the petitioners

¶45

¶46

is that though abort 11/z decades has elapsed, they have not been paid compensation as provided for under the Act."

¶47

Separate counter-affidavits were filed by the official respondents. They admitted that the land of the writ petitioners was acquired after having been notified and thus, stood vested in the Govemment under the provisions of the 1956 Act. It was stated that proposal was forwarded to the District Collector, Hlderabad District, for fixing the market value of the subject land and payrnent of compensation. The said proposal was stated to be under consideration.

¶48

Leamed Single Judge examined the matter and recorded as follows:

¶49

"It is a matter of record that the land of the petitionen in the said suwey numbers was initially declared as slum through a nodfication under Section l(1) of the Act. Section 3 (2) of the Act provides for calling upon the owner of the land to show cause as to x,hy the land declared as slum shouid not be acquired. Such a notice was issued to the father of the petitionen. Objectiors were submimed. Not being satisfied with the same, the 1., respondent proceeded to publish a notification acquiring the land. Thereby, the land vested absolutely in the State Government to authorize any authorify or officer to exercise ali or any of the powers under the Act. The Govemment is said to

\ \

::4::

l , t ! t i

have authorized the 1" respondent to exercise the power of issuing notifications under Sub-sections 1 and 2.

¶55

\X&rere the land of any person is acquired through notification issued under Section 3, he is vested with the right to paid the compersation under Section 5 of the Act. Section prescribes the procedure and basis for determination of the compensation. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners was acquired. The controversy is on-[y as to pafnent of compensation. Though the notification under Section 3(2) was issued way back on 2l-4-1988, compensation had not been paid so far. Failure of the respondents to pay the compensation constitutes an act of gross arbitrariness. The respondents exhibited great enthusiasm in publishing notifications under Section 3, which resulted in divesting the petitioners of their tide and possession the land. They did not exhibit even a fraction of that enthusiasm in payment of compensation. It is not as if the Act provides payrnent of market value. The compersation provided for under Section 6 does not represent the market value of the land. The respondents appear to have gained an impression that their duty ends with the acquisition of the land.

¶56

¶57

tWhile respondents 1 and 3 submit that the obligation to pay the compensation rests with the 2"d respondent, who represen* the Govemment, the lamer contends that the 1" respondent has to pay the compensation since the land was situated widrin the limia of Municipal Corporation. In this context, Section 4 of the Act becomes relevant. fu observed earlier, on publication of a notification in Section 3(3), the land stands vested in the "Govemment". Subsection 1 of Section 4 leaves it open to t}re Govemment either to hold the land under its control or to transfer it to the Municipal C-ouncil or Mturicipal C,olporation. It is only when such land is^{"transferred",}

¶58

¶59

that it shall vest in the Municipal C-ouncil or Municipal Corporation. Sub-section 2 thereof mandates that where the land is transferred under sub-section 1 to the Municipal C-olporation or Municipal Council, it shall be the liabiliry of such local authority to pay the compensadon in is entirety or in such proponion as may be fixed by tlre Govemment. Sub-section 3 directs that where the land continues to be under the control of the Govemment, it can undenake clearance or improvement of the slum and the comperxation shall be bome by the person to whom the land is allotted in such proportion as may be prescribed. The obligation for the 1o respondent to pay compensadon would arise, if only the Iand was trarsferred in i* favour. There is nothing on record to disclose that the Govemment has transferred the land in favour of the respondent. Nothing shon of transferring the land in favour of the C-orporation would obligate it to pay the compensation. In the absence of such a tnnsfer, the obligation squarely rests on the Govemment to pay the compensation.

¶60

The 3d respondent has categorically pleaded in his counter affidavit that he has addressed many letters to the 2'd respondent- the District Collector to arrange for compensation. Tht court takes seriors exception to the inaction on the pan of the^2"d respondent in making requisite funds available to the 3d respondent for payrnent of compensadon to the petitioners. The acts of respondents 7^and 2 n acquiring the land and the omission of the^2"d respondent i.^pu1arg the compensation have virually amounted to confiscation of the propefy of the petitioner contrary to law. The same carmot be countenanced.

¶61

Under the tand Acquisition Act, the delay in passing the award has been taken care of by providing interest under Section 34 and

¶62

¶63

additional market value under sub-section 1A of Section 2i of that Act. Section 9 of the present Act provides for payrnenr of interest at the rate of 4o/o p.a- Such a low rate of interest is provided on an assumption thar the authorities who are under obligation to pay the compensation would act without avoidabie delry The compensation provided for under the Act iself is meagre. In number of cases, the Supreme Courr took judicial notice of the geometrical proponion in which the cost of the iand, panicularly in the urtan areas, has been increasing. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of thet own delay, nor the petitioners can be rriade to suffer for the inaction on the pan of the responden6."

¶64

After thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, leamed Single Judge allowed the writ petition uitle order dated 06.01.2004. Commissioner of Municipal C.orporation of Hlderabad and Special Depury C-ollector, Land Acquisition (Municipal C-orporation of Hyderabae, were directed to take necessary steps for payrnent of compensation to the writ petitioners (respondents No.1 to Z) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was funher directed that compensation determined by the Special Depury C-ollector would carry inreresr @ 4o/o for a period of one lear from the dare of vesting of the land in the Govern ment i.e., 2l.O4.l9gg and @* _-

¶65

¶66

l5o/o p.a., till the date of payment of the amount. District Collector, Hlderabad District, was directed to make necessary funds available for payment of such compensation.

¶67

¶68

\ We are astonished that against such an order, the District Collector, Hlderabad District and Special Deputy C-ollector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Ftzderabad have chosen to file writ appeal. They are public authorities discharging their duties under the C.onstitution and the laws. They are duy bound to act in accordance with law. Divesting slum dwellen of their valuable land and not paying compensation for such forcible land acquisition is unlaq.4ul and unacceptable.

¶69

Leamed counsel for respondenx No.1 to Z submits that till date, compensation has not been paid.

¶70

11.^'We not onlydismiss the writ appeal but direct the appellants to comply with the direction of the leamed Single Judge aide the order dated 06.0L.2002 within four weeirs from the date of recelpt of a copyof this order. No costs.

¶71

¶72

Since we have dismissed the appeal, interim srspension

¶73

granted on 02.08.2004 srands vacated forthwith.

¶74

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed. /

¶75

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Ll/) SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77

The District Collector,^{Hyderabad District, Hyderabad} Z. tfie Special Dy. ColleLtor,^{Land Acquisition (MCH),6th Floor,Municipal} Comolex. Tankbund, Hvderabad

¶78