IMPORTANT POINT
Public authorities must follow statutory procedures for land acquisition; failure to do so violates constitutional rights.

ORDER :

(C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.) :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the inaction of the respondents in initiating the land acquisition proceedings in lieu of the delivery of possession of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.16-19 guntas in Dakhla No.449 in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancha Imarath, Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as per orders in E.A.No.21 of 2023 in E.P.No.103 of 2007 in O.S.No.333 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land and pay the compensation amount to the petitioner without any delay whatsoever in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 together with interest at 18% per annum...”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather Mohammed Ghouseddin, was the owner and pattedar of land admeasuring Ac.16-09 guntas in Sy.No.Dhakla No.449 situated at Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and he had instituted a suit vide O.S.No.133 of 1986 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the respondents herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the said property. It is further case of the petitioner that the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1996 declaring the grandfather of the petitioner as title holder and granted relief of recovery of possession and as no appeal was preferred, the said judgment and decree attained finality. It is further case of the petitioner that seeking execution of the said judgment and decree, E.P.No.103 of 2007 has been filed and the same was allowed on 19.04.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Civil Revision Petition No.3685 of 2012 on the file of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2022. It is stated that legal representatives of the original decree holders had filed E.A.No.21/2023 in E.P.No.103/2007 seeking issuance of warrant for delivery of possession through the Bailiff. Pending issuance of the warrant, the said property was utilized by the respondents as Missile Research Centre and as such E.A.No.21/2023 was opposed by the respondents stating that in view of establishing the Missile Research Centre, it is not possible to deliver the property and they are willing to acquire the suit schedule property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the said E.A was disposed of directing the respondents to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of suit schedule property vide orders dated 17.10.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even though the respondents filed a counter-affidavit in E.A.No.21/2023 in E.P.No.103/2007, stating that it is not possible to deliver the suit schedule land due to security reasons since the land is in possession of the Ministry of Defence and is used for Missile Research Operations and they are willing to initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “RFCTLARR Act”), till date, they have not initiated any action to pay compensation for acquiring the subject land. Hence the writ petition.

3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a detailed counter affidavit, inter alia stating that the land admeasuring 4190 Acres in Sy.No.1, situated at Imarat Kancha of Raviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belonged to His Excellency Highness (HEH) Nizam of Hyderabad and the same was acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Gazette Notification No.425 dated 15.03.1956. It is further stated tha