Land acquisition without mutual consent violates the statutory requirements, necessitating due process and compensation under the L.A. Act.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner to an extent of 126.25 square meters in Plot No.135, situated at Masid Banda in Sy.No.192 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.RW/TPS/Cir-XI/GHMC/2012, dated 01.06.2013, of respondent No.3, without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the L.A.Act’) read with A.P. Amendment Act, 2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired by initiating proceedings under the L.A. Act.

2. Heard Sri Suderndra Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

3. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that he is the owner and occupier of residential Plot admeasuring 550 square yards bearing Nos.128 and 135, situated in Sy.No.192 (Masid Banda) of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from one Kodicherla Mallesha under registered sale deed, dated 25.07.1991. While so, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 01.06.2013, to the petitioner stating that in the proposed road widening from HCU Bus stop to Botanical gardens via Masjeed Banda, the plot of the petitioner to an extent of 112.8 square meters would be affected, for which, he would be given concessions as prescribed in GO.Ms.No.279, Municipal Administration, dated 01.04.2008. That the petitioner, having found that the concessions given as per the said GO are not beneficial to him, got issued a legal notice dated 05.07.2013 calling upon the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquiring his land said to be affected in road widening. But, as there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner again got issued another notice dated 13.01.2014, however, there was no response from the respondents. It is further averred that on 22.02.2014, the petitioner found some digging mark and cementing work in his land and therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition challenging the action of the respondents in encroaching his land without following due process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and a part of his land is said to be affected in road widening. He further submitted that petitioner cannot be forced or compelled to accept for acquisition of his property under the guise of a Government Order, without paying compensation to him as per the prevailing market value by duly following the procedure contemplated under the L.A. Act.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s Ushodaya Publications, Eeenadu Complex, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner, MCH and another , [2001 (2) ALT 662 (FB)].

6. In the said judgment, the question that fell for consideration is whether the consent given by the landlady for acquisition of the property without giving notice or opportunity to the lessee is binding on the lessee and the said point was answered in negative.

7. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are entirely distinct and hence, the ratio laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner also r