Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Barla Rami Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others - Respondent
WP Nos.18757, 14062 and 22052 of 2007
Decided on: Twenty First Day of April, 2008
(B) Urban Areas Development Act, 1975-Section 13(2)- Section 13(2) permits the Authority to undertake or carry out any development of land subject to two conditions, (1) that such work shall be carried out in a development area, and (2) the proposed work shall be contemplated in a Master Plan or a Zonal Development Plan, which necessarily mean the approved plans under Sections 8 and 10 of an 1975 Act. Provisions of Section 13(3) of the 1975 Act do not come in the way of the respondents to undertake or carry out the work of execution of the outer ring road. [Para 57]
(C) Urban Areas Development Act, 1975- Sections- 18 and 19- Section 18 confers very wide powers on Government to acquire land either for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under the Act. Under Section 19 the Authority is empowered to dispose of any land acquired by the Government and transferred to it, without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon. If the Government is satisfied that a land is needed for development; it can acquire and transfer the same to the Authority. On such transfer, the Authority, subject to the directions, given by the Government, may even dispose of the land so acquired without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon. There is nothing in these provisions which would suggest that initiation of acquisition proceedings should necessarily precede final approval of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plans and the scheme of the Act in its entirety does not prohibit initiation of process for preparation and approval of plan on the one side and initiation of the acquisition proceedings on the other, simultaneously. Petitions dismissed. [Paras 69-71]
(1975) 4 SCC 285; 1998 (9) Supreme 361- Relied.
(D) Interpretation of Statutes-Words are to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences, construed according to their grammatical meaning unless that leads to absurdity or unless there is something in context or in object of statute to suggest to contrary. [Para 82]
(E) Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975-Section 12-Modification of an existing Master Plan-When once construction of Outer Ring Road is, already in existence, proposed change of alignment in existing Master Plan can by no means be treated as extensive change-By using words “or otherwise”, legislative intent is to take in its purview all other nature of changes or modifications which do not fall within ambit of Section 12(1)-Words “or otherwise” in Section 12 (2) must be read as ejusdem generis.. [Para 82]
(F) Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, Section 13- Government is assigned pivotal role and entrusted with multifarious functions under the Act to achieve the purpose and object of the Act. By interpreting the words “or otherwise” by giving their natural and etymological meeting, it does not lead to any incongruity nor does it defeat the purpose of legislation. Government which is the apex body is vested with the powers to undertake extensive changes in the Master Plan, while limiting the power of the Authority to make minor modifications under the Act. In the face of an express statutory power conferred by Section 12(2) of the 1975 Act, the limitation on the Governments power to confine to minor modifications cannot be read into the said provision. [Paras 83, 84]
(G) Doctrine-Doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to cases where particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as specified. In this case by using the words “or otherwise” the Legislature intends to cover all other nature of changes or modifications which do not fall in Section 12(1). [Paras 86, 90]
AIR 1957 SC 521- Applied.
(H) Urban Area Development Act, 1975, Section 56- Delegation of Power- Amplitude of Section 56(2) is wide enough to include a functionary such as the Vice-Chairman of the Authority in the expression “such officer as may be mentioned”. A delegate is entitled to take the help of experts in the field. The fact that the Government thought it fit to delegate its power to the top functionary of the Authority itself shows that it kept in view the relevant consideration, namely, that the important job of modifications to the Master Plan shall be handled by a responsible functionary of the Authority itself and not by an outsider. Mere fact that Vice-Chairman is part of the Authority does not render him ineligible for being delegated with power of preparation of a Draft master Plan. Question of enlargement of the power of Authority under Section 12(1) by Government by delegating power to Vice-Chairman does not arise at all. [Paras 93, 95]
(I) Judicial Discipline-Precedents- -Appeal filed against Judgment of Division Bench with Special Leave Petition, pending before Supreme Court- Unless and until finding in said Division Bench judgment is set aside, Court is bound by findings recorded therin. [Paras 100, 101]
These three writ petitions raise common issues of facts and law. Hence, they are being disposed of together.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.18757 of 2007 owns an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas; the petitioners in Writ Petition No.l4062 of 2007, who are two in number, together own Acs.9.39 guntas; and the four petitioners in Writ Petition No.22052 of 2007 together own about Acso4.19 guntas in various survey numbers of Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar MandaI, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the 1894 Act") for acquisition of the above-mentioned extents of lands, along with the lands belonging to others, for the purpose of construction of Outer Ring Road (for short "the ORR"). For the lands covered by Writ Petition Nos.18757 and 14062 of 2007, notification under Section 4(l) of the 1894 Act was issued on 404.2006; declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published on 6.4.2006; and Award was passed on 27.5.2006. The respondents claim that they have taken possession of the lands on 7.7.2006.
4. The lands covered by Writ Petition No.22052 of 2007 were notified under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 13.12.2005. The petitioners claimed to have filed objections in response to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. The Award was passed on 1.10.2007 and petitioners received notices dated 3.10.2007 issued under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act on 8.10.2007. Thus, all these three writ petitions were filed after the Awards were passed.
Pleadings of the Petitioners:
5. The gist of the pleadings contained in the affidavits originally filed and the additional grounds is summarized hereunder:
6. The Government constituted Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (for short "the Authority) under Section 3 of the Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short "the 1975 Act"). It is a corporate body. It has the powers to acquire and dispose of property, both movable and immovable. The objects of the Authority are to promote and secure development of all or any of the areas comprised in the development area. The Authority carries out civic survey and prepares Master Plan. It defines Zones and indicates the manner in which the land or each Zone is proposed to be used and the stages by which the development would be carried out. Along with the Master Plan, the authority should prepare a Zonal Development Plan, which contains the land use for roads, housing etc. Before submitting the draft Master Plan to the Government for approval, the Authority shall give an opportunity to every local authority and any person, who would like to file objections and suggestions to the draft Master Plan, and after its approval it will come into operation.
7. That, unless the Master Plan comes into operation, no development can be carried out. The authority can modify the Master Plan by virtue of the power conferred under Section 12(1) of the 1975 Act without effecting important alterations in the character of the Plan and which do not relate to the extent of the land uses or the standards of population density. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the 1975 Act, the Government is empowered either suo motu or on a reference from the Authority to make any modifications to the plan, whether such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise. This power is subject to the same restrictions as in Section 12(1) of the 1975 Act and not absolute. It cannot make major changes and the words "or otherwise" must be read as ejusdem generis.
8. That, the 1994 Master Plan did not set apart any land for use of a ring road. Laying down a ring road is a major change and a major modification. The Authority must go through the procedure and prepare another Master Plan but cannot modify the Master Plan of 1994. Unless the Master Plan is approved and comes into operation, no development activity can be undertaken. Even otherwise, unless the mo
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
