2024 Supreme(Telangana) 225
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
AL Sadanandam & others - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh & others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.1245, 1294, 6577 & 6501 OF 2012
Decided On : 03-06-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy
For the Respondent:Ld.Advocate General, Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy for Sri P. Ravicharan
The court emphasized that land acquisition must follow due process, including proper notice to affected parties, and failure to do so invalidates the acquisition.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6(1), 12(2), 16, 24(2) - Writ petitions challenging the registration of lease and conveyance deeds and the diversification of acquired land - Petitioners contended that the acquisition process was not followed, and no notice was served prior to the award - Court emphasized the necessity of following due process in land acquisition and the requirement of notice to affected parties - The court found that the land had not been physically possessed by the government, and the original purpose of acquisition had been altered, which amounted to a violation of the petitioners' rights. (Paras 17, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 41)
(B) Right to Property - The court reiterated that the right to property is a human right and cannot be deprived without due process of law. (Paras 32, 34)
(C) Judicial Review - The court held that the failure to follow statutory procedures in land acquisition renders the acquisition invalid. (Paras 36, 40)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands for public purpose, alleging that the acquisition process was flawed, and they were not given notice or compensation. They sought to set aside the registration of deeds and the award of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the acquisition process was not properly followed, and the petitioners were entitled to relief as the land had not been physically possessed by the government.
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquisition process was valid and whether the petitioners were deprived of their property without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to serve notice and the alteration of the purpose of acquisition violated the petitioners' rights, and the acquisition was deemed invalid.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard learned senior designate counsel Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, representing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned standing counsel Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy appearing on behalf of TSIIC Respondent No.4 and learned counsel Mr. P. Ravicharan, Link Legal Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.8, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7.
2. The petitioner approached the court in W.P.No. No.1245 of 2012 seeking prayer as under:
“to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no. 20560/2005 and 20562/2005 both dated 28-12-2005 on the file of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey no. 48 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The petitioners approached the court in W.P.No. No.1294 of 2012 seeking prayer as under:
“to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the registration of lease and conveyance deeds bearing document no. 20560/2006 and 20562/2006 both dated 28-12-2005 on the file of the seventh respondent, by declaring the action of the respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 of the diversification of the acquired land in survey no. 49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction; and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
4. The petitioners approached the court in W.P.No. No.6577 of 2012 seeking prayer as under:
“a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land in survey no.49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, by holding that the said land stands reverted to the petitioner.b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no. B/245/2000 on the file of the third respondent, by deleting the severed land in Survey No.49 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to pass award afresh, and affording an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard.”
5. The petitioner approached the court in W.P.No. No.6501 of 2012 seeking prayer as under:
“(a) declaring that the diversification of the severed land in survey no.48 of Nanakramguda village, Serilingampalli mandal, Ranga Reddy district falling to the east of the outer ring road in favour of the sixth respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction, by holding that the said land stands reverted to the petitioner.(b) setting aside the award dated 30-11-2005 in file no. B/245/2000 on the file of the third respondent, by deleting the area of 1 acre 3 guntas which is already part of the award bearing no.04/2006 in file no.LA/Unit.V/ORR/08/2006 dated 27-5-2006, and the severed land falling to the eastern side of the outer ring road, and to re-conduct award enquiry, and to pass award afresh after deducting the said extent, and affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.”
PERUSED THE RECORD :
6. The case of the Petitioner A.L. Sadanandam in W.P.No.1245/2012 and W.P.No.6501/2012 in brief as per the averments made in the affidavits filed by the Petitioner in support of the said two (02) writ petitions is as under :
i. The Writ Petitioner i.e., A.L.Sadanandam in W.P.No.1245/2012 who is also writ petitioner in W.P.No.6501/2012 is the o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
