IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
M. Prabhakar Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana and others – Respondents
WP No.10026 of 2024
Decided On : 30-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and acquisition of subject property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. consent and compensation agreements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. counterarguments of the second respondent. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. review of claims and compensation paid. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. procedural requirements for land acquisition. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. confirmation of procedural compliance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. legality of the acquisition process discussed. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. details on mla's request and land use. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. official communication regarding land procurement. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. market value surmised for compensation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. delays noted in compensation allocation. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. discussion on market value discrepancies. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 13. pressure in consent acknowledgement. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 14. examining legality of consent and payments. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 15. property rights under constitutional frameworks. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 16. constitutional principles infringing property rights. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 17. order for returning compensation and acquisition initiation. (Para 49) |
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. L.Vani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in paying meager compensation amount for the petitioner’s land admeasuring 936 Sq. Yards out of 1560 Sq. yards in Sy.No.93/A of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District against the consent of the petitioner and against the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the GHMC Act, 1955’) as well as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’) as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONER:-
3. Originally, the entire land admeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas situated in Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District belonging to one Mr.A.Shankaraiah S/o.Narayana and his name was also mutated in the revenue records including Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55. Pattadar passbooks and title deed were also issued in his favour. The said A.Shankaraiah along with his sons sold the land admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas out of Ac.2.30 guntas to Mr. M.Veerappa and Mr.M.Veda Prakash under registered sale deed bearing Document No.7950 of 1980 dated 25.07.2080. Therefore, left over land was Ac.0.33 guntas.
4. After the demise of A.Shankaraiah, his legal heirs have succeeded the subject property. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. The petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1560 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”) from the legal heirs of A.Shankaraiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6211 of 2015, dated 11.08.2015. He is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject property.
5. The Member of Legislative Assembly of Rajendranagar Constituency, sought the subject land for the purpose of conducting Bathukamma festival and other cultural programmes for the locals. He persuaded the petitioner to handover the land to the 2nd respondent assuring him the payment of compensation. On the said persuasion, the petitioner agreed to give subject property provided that the 2nd respondent pays twice the market value prevailing as on that date and accordingly, under pressure and persuasion, issued a consent letter dated 06.11.2017 seeking an amount of Rs.8,000/- per square yard which is twice the prevailing market value as compensation. The 2nd respondent assured the petitioner that the comp
Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Velisetty Deva Kumar vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh
K.T.Plantation Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka
Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbai Patel and others
AI
The constitutional right to property requires compliance with legal procedures for acquisition, emphasizing that no valid transaction occurs without proper consent and compensation mechanisms.
Acquisition of property requires mutual agreement between owner and authorities, following the due process outlined in the Land Acquisition Act.
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 without mutual consent violates the statutory requirements, necessitating due process and compensation under the L.A. Act.
Absence of agreement for TDR/FSI necessitates monetary compensation under the 2013 Act, as lawful acquisition processes were not followed.
No person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law, as established in various judgments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.