Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8421
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Pervaz Rustomjee Bengalli – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP/25517/2024
The court emphasized the necessity of due process and notification to affected parties before proceeding with land acquisition for public projects.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners challenge the issuance of Working Permission for elevated corridor construction without due process - Petitioners claim ownership of land and structures affected by the project - Respondents assert properties belong to Central Government and are under control of Defense Estate Officer. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles - Court emphasizes the need for due process and notification to affected parties before proceeding with land acquisition. (Paras 7)
(C) Administrative Sanction - State Government authorized expenditure for project, directing adherence to due process in land acquisition. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners claim ownership of land and structures in Secunderabad Cantonment, purchased through public auction in 1927. They contest the issuance of Working Permission for construction of an elevated corridor over their property without proper notification.
Findings of Court:
The court directs adherence to due process and notification to the petitioners if their rights are affected.
Issues: Whether the petitioners have rights over the properties and the legality of the Working Permission issued without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the necessity of following due process in land acquisition and the importance of notifying affected parties as per law.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions to follow due procedure.
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. W.P.Nos.25515 and 25517 of 2024 are filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Working Permission dt 01.03.2024 bearing No.13015/63/2023/D (Lands) dt. 01.03.2024 to respondent No.3 for the construction of elevated corridor as part of State Highway-1 and for construction of elevated corridor as part of National Highway44 in Hyderabad illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, particularly Article 300-A against the principles of natural justice to the extent of the petitioners property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.4-15 Gts or 20,086 Sq. Yards and the structures thereon referred to as Bungalow No.177 in GLR Survey No.527 Bowenpally, NH-44, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad and land admeasuring 4000 Sq. Yards and the structures thereon referred to as Bungalow No.148 in GLR Survey No.736, Balamrai, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad and to consequently set aside the said Working Permission dt 01.03.2024 as far as the Petitioner s property is concerned.…”
3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are referred to as mentioned in W.P.No.25515 of 2024.
5. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.4-15 guntas (20,086 Square Yards) and the structures thereon referred to as Bungalow No.177 in GLR Survey No.527, Bowenpally, NH-44, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from the predecessors in interest, who purchased in turn at public auction sale in the Court of the District Judge, Secunderabad in O.S.No.38 of 1925 on 27.06.1927. It is the further case of the petitioner that in February 2024 it was informed that the government is planning to construct Elevated Corridor over Rajiv Rahadari State Highway-1 and National Highway-44 in Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any notification, respondent No.1 issued the impugned working permission No.13015/63/2023/D(Lands), dated 01.03.2024 for construction of Elevated Corridor as part of State Highway-1 and for construction of Elevated Corridor as per the National Highway-44 in Hyderabad.
6. Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Secunderabad Cantonment Board appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 submitted that the structures in Bungalow No.177 in GLR Survey No.527 Bowenpally, NH-44, Secunderabad Cantonment and Bungalow No.148 in GLR Survey No.736, Balamrai, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad, belong to the Central Government and are under the control of Defense Estate Officer; on the request of the State Government, there is a proposal to transfer the said properties in favour of the State Government to carry out the construction of Elevated Corridor over Rajiv Rahadari State Highway-I and National Highway-44 in Hyderabad; and in pursuance of the same, the State Government accepted the said proposal of the Central Government and has also issued G.O.Ms.No.34, MA & UD (plg.I(1)) Dept., dated 06.03.2024 according Administrative Sanction for an amount of Rs.2,232.00 Crores to take up the project with funding from externally aided agencies such as JICA and also authorized HMDA to take up the project on EPC Mode; pursuant to the said G.O., respondent No.3 issued letter dated 15.03.2024 instructing to initiate the land acquisition process under TDR basis at the earliest, for taking up the construction of the Elevated Corridor; and the petitioners are not having any right or interest over the subject property.
7. In view of the said submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion with regard to the right and title of the petitioners over the subject properties, deems it appropriate to dis
