Disposed

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024WP/15789/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award on grounds of violation of constitutional rights. The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation with documents to establish their title if they choose to do so, placing the onus on them rather than quashing the award immediately.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioners to make a fresh representation enclosing documents to establish title; respondents directed to pass appropriate orders following such representation.

Jai Prakash Singh Vs The Special Deputy Collector, Land… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15789 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Jai Prakash Singh, S/o.B.P.Singh, Aged^{about 35 years, R/oD.No9-188,} Brindavan Colony=, Balapur X^{Roads, Pbst Vaishali nagar, Hyderabad-79.}

¶9

2 Satva Prakash Sinqh, S/o.B.P.Singh, aged^{about 32 years,R/o.D.No.9-188,} Briridavan Colony, Balapur X^{Roads, Post Vaishalinagar, Hyderabad-79}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition^{(lndustries), Government of} Andhra Pradesh, Tank Bund^{Road, Hyderabad.}

¶13

2 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented^{by its Secretary,Transport, Roadsand} Buildings Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶14

3 Research Centre lmarat^{(RCl), Research and Development Organisation,} Ministry of Defence, Govdrnnient of^{lndia, P.O.Vignan Kancha, Hyderabad-} 69, represented by^{its Director.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other^{appropriateWrit, order or} orders directron or directions declaring^{the Awardpassed by the 1'r Respondent} in No.D/189/1994 dated 31.10,2006 as^{illegal, contrary to law and alsoviolative} of the Articles 14.21 and 3004 of the^{Constitutionof lndia in so far as the} acquisition of the land in Sy.No.^{35 of R.C.l. Main Road, RoshandowlaVillage,} saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District^{and to direct the Respondents not to interfere} with the peaceful^possessron and enjoyment^{of the petitioners of tlieir land} situated in Sy.No. 35 of R.C.l. Main^{Road, Roshandowla Village, Saroornagar} Mandal, R.R. District.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 WP^{MP. NO: 20718OF 2009}

¶18

Petition under Sectron^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased} direct the 3rd respondent^{not to alter the natureof the land In any manner} situated in Sy.No.35 R.C.l^{Main Road,Roshandowla Village,Saroornagar} Mandal, R.R. District^{pendlng disposalof the writpetition}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petrtron under Sectron 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} permit the petitioners to file the Additional^{Materialrn W P NO. 15789 of 2009'} pending disposal of the matn writ^petition.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013^{(WVMP.NO:14020F20131}

¶22

Between:

¶23

Research Centre lmarat^{(RCl), Research and DevelopmentOrganlsition'Ministryof} O"t"r"u, Government^{of 'tnOid, P.O.VignanKancha,Hyderabad - 69' represented} bv its Director

¶24

..'VACATE STAY PETITIONER/RR^No'3

¶25

AND

¶26

I Jai Prakash Singh, S/o.BPSingh,^{Aged about 35 years,R/o D.No 9-188,} Brindavan Cotony;,^Balapur X^{Rords,PostVaishali nagar, Hyderabad-79.}

¶27

2 Satva Prakash Sinqh, S/o^{B.P.Srngh.aged about 32 years.R/o D.No 9-188.} aiirioauan Colory^"Balapur X Roadl.^{PostVaishali nagar' Hvderabad-79.}

¶28

.,.RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶29

3 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition^{(lndustries), Government of} Andhra Pradesh, Tank Bund^{Road. Hyderabad.}

¶30

4 State of Andhra Pradesh,^{represented by its Secretary,Transport,Roads and} Buildings Department, Secretarrat,^Hyderabad

¶31

...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavrt filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased To}

¶33

vacate the rnterim stay^{Order dated 04/08/2009granted in WPMPNo 207'18 of} 2009 rn WP No.^{15789of 2009}

¶34

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI VEDULASRINIVAS}

¶35

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1: AGP FORLAND ACQUISITION}

¶36

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2:GP FOR ROADAND TRANSPORT}

¶37

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3:SRI A' SAMIRKUMAR REDDY} (sc FoR ccsc)

¶38

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR TRANSPORT}

¶39

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶40

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15789 of 2OO9

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This u,rit petition is filed praying this Court to declare the award No.D/i89/1994, dated 31.10.2006 passed by respondent No.I insofar as the land in Sy.No.35 of R.C.l. Main Road, Roshandovrda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Redcly District, as illegal, contrary to lau and also violative of the Articles 74, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere u,ith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject land and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶43

It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the owner of land admeasuring 508 square yards situated in plot No.2, Sy.No.35 (Part) and 40, R.C.I. Main Road, Roshandowla Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.97B/1999, dated Og.O2.lggg and petitioner No.2 is the owner of land admeasuring S00 square yards

¶44

1 \

¶45

¶46

CVBR, J L wp 1s789_2009

¶47

situated in Plot No.3, Sy.No.35^{(Part) arrd 40, R.C.l'Main} Road, Roshandowla Viliage, Saroornagar Mandal,^Ranga Reddy District having purchased the sarne^through registered sale deed bearing document^No.4679 I¹⁹⁹⁹ , dated26.07.1999 and since the^{date of purchase,theyare} in possession and enjoyment of the same. It^{is further} stated that their vendors and their^{predecessor-in-interest} are also absolute owners of the^{property and that there is a} proposal to widen the road which connects the^{rear gate of} D.R.D.L. with the premises of respondent No.3'^{It is further} stated that the plots of the^{petitionersare abutting to the} existing 100 feet wide road which^{connectsthe rear gate of} D.R.D.L. with respondent No.3 and due to^{the proposed} road widening the entire plots of the^{petitionerswill be} covered. It is further stated that^{when respondent No.3 is} proceeding with the road u'idening work by entering^into the land of the petitioners by putting up marking^stones, they have filed W.P.No.3970 of^{2OO9 contendingthat} without acquiring the land, respondent No'3^{shall not} proceed with any work. This Court, uide order,^dated 27.O2.2OO9 directed both the parties to maintain^{status quo}

¶48

¶49

CVBR, J wp 1s789 2009

¶50

¶51

ald the same was extended on 18.03.2009. It is further stated that respondent No.1 conducted a sLrrvey and furnished particulars u.ith regard to the lalds ir-r different survey numbers of different villages which are going to be affected by u,a17 of acquisition. Thereafter, n otification under Section a (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25.08.2003 and 01.09.2003 respectivel) . The final award was published on 30. 10.2006. It is further stated that insofar as Sv.No.35 of Roshandowla Village is concerned, Ac. 1 .O I guntas of land was affected under the said acquisition and the authorities have not included the names of the petitioners in the arvard and compensation amount of Rs.8,58,16,397 l- was deposited for the total lands acquired. The land is still in possession of the petitioners by virtue of the slafus quo granted by this Court in W.P.No.397O of 20O9

¶52

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1, inter alia, stating that on the request of Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, acquisition proceedings have been

¶53

\ \

¶54

¶55

CVBR, J wp_15789_2009

¶56

initiated for acquiring the^{land to an extentof Acs.89.OO to} widen the 150 feet road on either^{side of RCI and DRDL link} road, situated at Roshandowla, Balapur, Mallapur^and Sulthanpur Villages of Saroornagar Mandal,^RangaReddy District. It is further stated that the District^Collectorhas sent the said requisition with instructions^{to initiatethe} land acquisition proceedings under^{the provisions of the Act} uide letter, dated 14.O2. 1994 and in^{pursuance of the same,} the land acquisition^proceedings have been^{initiated by} issuing draft notification under^{Section a(1) of tl:e Act uide} G.O.Ms.No.141, dated 14.08.2A23 invoking^{the urgency} clause under Sectio n 17 (a) of the Act^{and consequent} thereto, draft declaration under^{Section 6 of the Act was} published and after approval by the Government^uide Memo No.45l3/Roads-III-212OO3, dated 16.08.2003.^{It is} further stated that notice under^Sections 9^{(1) and10 of the} Act in Form-6 was issued on 13.09.20O3^{and publishedthe} same in the ofhce of the M.R.O.,^{Saroornagar,M.P.D.O.} Saroornagar, Municipal Commissioner,^{L.B.Nagar, Police} Station, Saroornagar and Gram^{Panchayat,Balapur and} thereafter notices under Sections 9^{(3) and 1O of the Act,}

¶57

¶58

CVBR, J wp 15789_2009

¶59

¶60

dated 13.09.2003 r'r,ere issued in^{Form-8and u,'as servedon} the land orvners and thereafter,^{award has been passed} determining the compensation.^{It is further stated that the} respondents have not received any letters^addressed by^the petitioners before concluding the award enquiry. It is also stated that an extent of 1992 square^yards was^affected under Vijal' Dttrga Nagar Layout and plots have been purchased by the various plot holders and the plot holders have filed claim petitions and claimed the compensation The present petitioners have not filed any claim^t'Lt the time of a'*,ard enqurry. It is also stated that the burden of proving the title depends on the claimant but the present petitioners have failed to prove their title over the land during award enquiry.

¶61

Considered the submissions made by Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2 Perused the record

¶62

^I 'l

¶63

¶64

I I I I I I i

¶65

CVBR. J wp_15789_2009

¶66

On careful examination of the record, the^case of^the petitioners is that they have purchased 508 square^yards and 500 square yards respectively, Sy.No.3S^{(Part)and 40,} R.C.l. Main Road, Roshandowla Village,^Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through registered^sale deeds. It is their case that the said land^{was acquired} without notifying their names and notifying the^{names o[} the earlier land owners ie.,^{predecessorintitle of the} petitioners. It is the specific case ol the petitioners^that ,they have made a representation, dated 02.06.2004^before passing the award disputing the entitlement of the^earlier land owners to receive the compensation'^Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition^has disputed the submission of the representation,^{along with} the documents, before concluding the^{award enquiryin} terms of the provisions of the Act.

¶67

In view of the above submissions and since it^{is stated} that the petitioners have purchased the subject^property through registered sale deeds and the same^{is now utilised} \ 1^{for thepurpose ofwideningof theroad andthe}

¶68

¶69

41,

¶70

CVBR, J Wp 15789_2009

¶71

compensation amount has already^{been deposited, this} Court deems it appropriate^{to dispose of the writ petition} permitting thc petitioners to make a^{fresh representation} duly enclosing at1 the documents^{to establish their title over} the subject^{propertybefore} the^{respondents, in the event of} such represenlation is made by the^{petitioners,the} respondents are directed to pass appropriate^{orders in} accordance with 1aw and communicate^{the decision thereon} to the petitioners.

¶72

7 . With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

¶73

disposed of. No costs.

¶74

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions perrding, if

¶75

any, shall stand closed.

¶76

¶77

//rRUE copy// ^:.?3i^$dlBtsrRiH

¶78

SEcioN oFFIcERoFFIcER

¶79

To, SEcioN oFFIcERoFFIcER 1 Il! f !^{??ii3."'1 1,, f-"[i,lsh::f,ffJ#s} t i o n ( r n d u s t ri es ) G o ve rn m e n t or

¶80

2 il1Ei,,T:?lt";5:?,31 fffiAPrad6sh^{trJnsportRoads and Buirdrnss}

¶81

3 ffi.?i!"":Ifi I'TE?ff :r"fJrtf^{]Tqli (.* ct r Researcha nd Deveropm ent} Hyderabad - 69. ence' Government of lndia. P.o vignafi ki;cna,

¶82

4 9::99^{,q Sn_VedutaSrinivas, Advocate} IOpUCI ror Land acquisition. ildi Eor",t%,. tn" state or reransana,

¶83

6 i-,:ri!ff:.t! 7 Iyf".3,3i:",^{jN3361tif ,:t$L:',1,!['s"',"Ipf} i,.:).rf,Et?lu,,nn,n,,, 8 rransport Hish court ror the state or

¶84

o iflf3;E#,'#35i8:5r33,tri

¶85

TJ LS^q,.

¶86

r5fl

¶87

¶88

i I I 1 ,,, i ef/a : i I ,fir"

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912024

ORDER

WP.No.15789 of 2009

.,.. -<br>.,- ,1,,:
/t / '. " o^.,,.lir
/ t :..' f'
2 r str 202t
', 1.,

¶94

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries)

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ikar Outdoor Advertising Vs The Union of India

Elishala Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pathan Apser Hussen Vs Bureau of Immigration

Durga Harini alias Deepthi Vs The Union of India

A. Siva Lakshmi Devi Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Sri Ugamraj Nahar, Vs The State of Telangana