The main legal point established in the judgment is that when no award has been passed under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the compensation should be determined under the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of timely performance and the entitlement of the affected parties to compensation under the new Act.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the respondent No. 1 issued Notification, dated 25-04-2006, No. D3/2760/2006 under Section 4(1) of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act) to acquire 212.74 sq. yds of petitioner No. 1’s land and the subject land is located near Afzia Towers near Begumpet, Hyderabad. Section 5-A inquiry of 1984 Act was dispensed with invoking urgency clause and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act dated 29.04.2006 was issued, but neither award was passed nor compensation was paid as per Section 11 of 1894 Act. On 15.07.2006 respondents (GHMC) decided to acquire 157.76 Sq.Yds. On 29.09.2006, a letter was addressed by respondent No. 3 to petitioner No.1 stating that only 57.20 sq.yds. of land would be acquired. On 10.10.2006, petitioner No. 1 addressed letter to respondents stating that petitioners agreed for TDR (Transfer of Development Rights). But the respondents did not issue TDR till 2016. On 20.12.2006 petitioners filed present writ petition seeking setting aside of Section 4(1) Notification as respondents deviated from their actual plan. In the year 2015, W.P.No. 40579 of 2015 was filed by the 1st petitioner’s son by name Sri. Anand Singh, seeking compensation under 2013 Act, but subsequently, however, on advise and in view of the fact that the present writ petition is pending, W.P.No. 40579 of 2015 was withdrawn. On 29.05.2015, respondent No. 3 forwarded plan stating actual land acquired was 35.87 Sq.yds. On 17.09.2016 respondent agreed for issuance of TDR certificate, after 10 years of petitioners’ consent. On 17.09.2017, petitioner No. 1 filed amendment petition bearing No. WPMP No. 39923 of 2017 in W.P.No. 26701 of 2006 seeking granting of compensation as per new Land Acquisition Act, 2013. As the petitioner No. 1 is now 78 years old and as due to changed circumstances wherein respondent agrees for TDR after 10 years, it is however, difficult for the petitioners to make use of TDR. Section 24(1)(a) of new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 provides for grant of compensation under new Act, if Award has not been passed under old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the petitioners’ prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant compensation under new Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners bring on record through a Memo dated 04.04.2022, three material documents, which are as follows :

(1) Letter No. A/931/TPS/RW/HO/GHMC/2016/1350, dated 17.09.2016.

(2) Letter No.A/931/A/TPS/RW/HO/GHMC/2016/1620, dated 05.11.2016.

(3) Letter No. 165/ACP/17/TPS/GHMC/2017, dated 30.11.2017.

4. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:

(1) Placing reliance on the letter dated 17.09.2016, it is contended that the said letter called upon Sri. Anand Singh and requested him to submit the registered Gift Deed along with Sketch Plan of affected land duly registered, so that GHMC will issue the TDR Certificate and the petitioners had not complied with the said request of City Planner, GHMC and had not submitted the registered Gift Deed as on date to the respondent GHMC.

(2) Placing reliance on the letter dated 05.11.2016, it is contended that Commissioner, GHMC refers to the earlier decision of GHMC to issue TDR which was agreed by the petitioners in the year 2006 on 05.11.2016 and contends that there was inordinate delay on the part of the respondent -GHMC in acting upon GHMC’s own decision to issue TDR in the year 2006 and therefore, the same is not permissible now at this length of time.

(3) Placing reliance on the letter dated 30.11.2017, it is contended that there is clear admission by the Assistant City Planner, GHMC that the petitioners had not availed the relaxation offered to the petitioners by the GHMC i.e. issuance of TDR, concessions etc. and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for payment