SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 641

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Banda Shekar Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Telangana and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 35594 Of 2022
Decided On : 11-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Porika Chandana.
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Ravinder Reddy, Mr. K. Durga Prasad.

No person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law, as established in various judgments.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [LAND ACQUISITION] - [Section 24 & 136, Shankernagar Colony, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District-TS] - The court directed the respondents to conduct a joint survey of the petitioner's land and identify if it was affected by the walking track developed by the 6th respondent. The court emphasized the principle that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law, as established in various judgments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 6 & 7, in acquiring the petitioner's land without notice or compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as illegal. The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the land and alleged that it was acquired without due process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted at that stage as none of the respondents admitted to acquiring the petitioner's land. It directed the respondents to conduct a joint survey to identify if the petitioner's land was affected by the walking track developed by the 6th respondent. The court emphasized the principle that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents had illegally acquired the petitioner's land without notice or compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law, as established in various judgments. It directed the respondents to conduct a joint survey to identify if the petitioner's land was affected by the walking track developed by the 6th respondent.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to conduct a joint survey of the petitioner's land and identify if it was affected by the walking track developed by the 6th respondent. The court emphasized the principle that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law, as established in various judgments.

ORDER :

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Government pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.6 and learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for the 7th respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 6 & 7, who have collectively acquired the Petitioner's Land admeasuring 360 Sq. Yards (300.9 Sq.Mts.,) in Plot No. 15 covered in Sy.Nos.24 & 136, situated in Shankernagar Colony, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District-TS without issuing the petitioner any Notice and without following due process of Law and by acting above rule of law, besides have not yet initiated any Land Acquisition Proceedings and also not paid any single rupee of Compensation to the Petitioner under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Rules, 2014, as arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, highhanded, dereliction of duty, by giving colourable exercise to their statutory powers, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently may direct the Respondents to either return back the Petitioner's aforesaid Land or to pay Compensation to the Petitioner under the New Land Acquisition Act No.30 of 2013 along with damages.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

    a) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid Land admeasuring 360 Sq. Yards in Plot No. 15 covered in Sy.Nos.24 & 136, situated in Shankernagar Colony, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District-TS, having purchased the same by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 31- 07-1993 vide Document No.2373 of 1993.

b) However, the allegation was made that the petitioner’s aforesaid Land is part of Ceiling Surplus Land. Thus, the petitioner has regularized the said land as per the Government Scheme and obtained endorsement dated 10.04.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner left to the United State of America and by the time the petitioner came back to visit India, development activities by the Government has taken place in widening the Roads and other places.

c) Subsequently, when the petitioner visited the said land, it was observed that the same has been acquired by the GHMC without issuing any Notice nor paying any Compensation to the petitioner under the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 for such acquisition.

d) On 14.07.2022, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 2nd Respondent stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said land and requested him to take necessary action. Accordingly, based on the above mentioned representation the 2nd Respondent addressed a letter to the 5th Respondent requesting him to look into the contents of the said representation, enquire and submit detailed report for taking further necessary action.

e) Thereafter, the 5th Respondent after making necessary enquiry reported to the 2nd Respondent from the office of the 4th Respondent by stating that petitioner’s land was inspected and observed that his office has not acquired the aforesaid land nor did any developmental works. However, he observed that the walking track and some development work have been taken by the 6th Respondent in cooperation with the 7th Respondent which includes the petitioner’s land.

f) The 6th Respondent with the cooperation of the 7th Respondent acquired the petitioner’s aforesaid Land without issuing any Notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law, which amounts to arbitrariness, highhandedness and giving colourable exercise to their statutory powers by acting above rule of law which is affecting the petitioner’s Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. Counter Affida

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    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

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top