Important Point – Mere late publication of notification in District Gazette, would not vitiate acquisition proceedings.

1. Acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Hyderabad Metro Rail is questioned by the petitioner by challenging the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act of 1894’) vide notification No.C/2341/2013 dated 30.12.2013 as well as draft declaration under Section 6 dated 06.01.2015 and the consequential award dated 31.03.2015. Petitioner also sought an alternate relief to direct the third respondent to acquire the property of the petitioner bearing premises No.8-2-293/82/A/61/1 in Plot Nos.60 and 61 of Jubilee Hills admeasuring 2099.97 sq. yards without built up area.

2. Petitioner states in the affidavit that it has purchased the commercial complex comprising of cellar, ground and four upper floors at the aforesaid premises with a total built up area of more than 1,00,000 sq. feet. Petitioner states that at the time of purchase, during due diligence, it was noticed that there was a proposal for 60 feet road widening on the southern side and except that there was no other proposal for acquisition. However, the third respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 dated 30.12.2013, which was published in the local newspapers and in Hyderabad District Gazette for acquisition of the properties under the curves and bends in the Corridor III of the Hyderabad Metro Rail Project on the stretch from Greenlands to Road No.5, Jubilee Hills. However, noticed dated 06.01.2014 was issued notifying widening of road from Saradhi Studios to Road No.5 is proposed to 100 feet and calling for objections. Petitioner filed its objections on 10.02.2014 raising undue hardship and issue of jurisdiction of the authority on the purpose of acquisition being under the provisions of the Metro Railways Act, 1978. Meanwhile, petitioner obtained copies of alignment plans under the Right to Information Act.

3. Respondent No.3, thereafter, issued a revised notice under Form 3 under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 dated 13.05.2014 referring to draft notification dated 30.12.2013 clarifying that in the earlier notice it was wrongly informed that the acquisition is for road widening whereas acquisition is for curves and bends with 25.5 meters RoW in Corridor III of the Hyderabad Metro Rail Project and in that notice, it was informed that the objections received within due date, if any, will be enquired into on 16.06.2014. Petitioner filed fresh objections on 13.06.2014. On 10.12.2014, report of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 was submitted rejecting the objections and petitioner states that no notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is, therefore, issued or published.

4. Petitioner questions the alignment on the ground that it is suited to serve the interest of senior retired IAS officers, who are highly influential and have prevailed upon change of alignment. Petitioner also complains that by acquiring part of the property, two asymmetrical triangular anti vasthu halves of the building are left, which are neither useful for any purpose nor have any value and as such, seeks that under Section 49(1) of the Act of 1894, the respondents are bound to acquire the entire structures. Petitioner also raised a legal contention viz. the proceedings under the Act of 1894 are initiated after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act 30 of 2013’). Hence, the notification published in the Gazette dated 07.01.2014 is invalid and the entire acquisition under the Act of 1894 is vitiated and bad in law.

5. While petitioner had earlier filed WP.No.10629 of 2015, during pendency thereof, petitioner was served with a notice under Section 37(2) of the Act 30 of 2013 dated 31.03.2013 on 17.04.2015. In view of that, petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with a liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed. Petitioner also complains that