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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1085

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Venkatesh rep. (Ms.) L. Vani
For the Respondent: Government Pleader, Raparathi Venkatesh (Standing Counsel), Government Pleader for Home

The constitutional right to property requires compliance with legal procedures for acquisition, emphasizing that no valid transaction occurs without proper consent and compensation mechanisms.

Headnote:(A) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Section 146 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petition filed against the 2nd respondent's unilateral decision of compensation payment which violated statutory procedures and agreements made for land acquisition. - The petitioner, an absolute owner of the subject land, consented to its acquisition with conditions that were ignored. (Paras 10, 18, 47)

(B) Right to Property - It is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed without following due process. Compensation must be in accordance with the proper legal framework. (Paras 44, 47)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner consented to the acquisition of 1560 Sq. yards of land under pressure from local officials, with the assurance of suitable compensation, which was not followed through. The petitioner received delayed compensation and issued a TDR certificate under protest. (Paras 3-9)

Findings of Court:
The action of the 2nd respondent to acquire the land was found to be illegal, arbitrary, and lacking adherence to mandatory acquisition procedures under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, resulting in an invalid compensation payment. (Paras 42-47)

Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of compensation paid without proper procedure under the Act, and the rights of the property owner concerning due process. (Paras 12, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any land acquisition must strictly adhere to prescribed statutory procedures, highlighting the importance of consent and proper valuation in compensation processes. The violation of these principles rendered the acquisition illegal. (Paras 46, 47)

Result: Writ petition allowed, compensation declared illegal, and the 2nd respondent ordered to initiate a fresh acquisition process. (Paras 49)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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