Point of Law: Merely because Collector failed to revise market value based on prevalent market value of land, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated, for reason that, petitioners are not going to sustain any loss, in case anyone of the modes prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of Act, 2013 are adopted.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the authorities in including the lands of the petitioners in the Land pooling scheme without their willingness, initiating acquisition of the petitioners lands and proceeding to pass awards in violation of provisions of Act 30 of 2013 as illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the 11 (1) notification vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dt.10.01.2017, proceedings dt.21.04.2017 and declaration dt.30.06.2017 with respect to the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.112/1B to an extent of 360 sq.yds and 240 sq.yds respectively in Pitchikalpalem village, while directing the authorities to remove the subject lands from the Final Land pooling scheme vide Rc.No.1/2016/DP dt.19.09.2016”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they

are the absolute owners and possessors of house site in Sy.No.112/1B in an extent of 360 Sq.yds and 240 Sq.yds respectively. The petitioners entered into agreement of sale in December, 2014 much before enactment of Capital Region Development Authority Act and the said agreements were registered in January, 2015 as the petitioners had to pool the money from various sources, including loans from the known persons and relatives. The said plots are part of Pitchukulapalem, a small habitation of Dondapadu village.

3. The State Government declared its intention to construct a world class State capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2014. Around 29 villages in Thullur and Mangalagiri mandals covering an area of around 50,000 acres are notified as capital city area vide G.O.Ms.254 dated 31.12.2014. House sites of petitioners are also made part of Capital city area. The Capital Region Development Authority constituted vide CRDA Act, 2014 announced Land Pooling scheme to pool the land from the willing land owners in the said 50,000 acres area. The authorities declared that existing village settlements and adjoining non-agriculture land which form part of extended settlements will be exempted from pooling and stated to be preserved and developed within the proposed new capital city. As the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.112/1B to an extent of 360 sq.yds, and 240 cents forms part of village settlement and are registered in sq.yds long back. The petitioners thought that their land is exempted from Land pooling and never gave consent for the land pooling. No consent form under 9.3 was given. Thus, the very inclusion of land of the petitioners in the land pooling is illegal and arbitrary.

4. The petitioners further contended that the State authorities arbitrarily included their land in land acquisition notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act No.30 of 2013”) vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dated 20.01.2017 on the ground that the land was included in the Land Pooling scheme. There is no absolute necessity and no specific public purpose that ought to be served by acquiring the land of the petitioners. As the inclusion of land of the petitioners in Land Pooling Scheme itself is illegal, acquiring the land on that ground will not stand to legal scrutiny. The petitioners came to know that the said notification is invalid as it was issued without revision and updation of market value. The petitioners submitted their objections earlier and requested the authorities to exempt their land from acquisition. But, the authorities did not consider their objections and rejected arbitrarily without any valid basis. No valid hearing was conducted.

5. The rejection orders were issued by District Collector vide Rc.No.5798/2015 - G1 dated 21.04.2017. The said authority did not hear the petitioners while issuing the proceedings and that their objections