Acquisition of property by mutual agreement under Section 146 of the GHMC Act is distinct from compulsory acquisition; therefore, it is not repugnant to the Act of 2013 or violative of constitutional protections regarding eminent domain.

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Rajkumar Gummi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. The vires of Section 146 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GHMC Act') is being challenged as unconstitutional, ultra vires and repugnant to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013') in teeth of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It is also in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

3. Section 146 of the GHMC Act impugned herein reads as under:

146. Acquisition of immovable property by agreement:-

(1) Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Commissioner may acquire, or whenever it is necessary or expedient for any purpose of this Act that the Commissioner shall acquire, any immovable property, such property may be acquired by the Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation by agreement on such terms and at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee, either generally for any class of cases or specially in a particular case.

(2) And whenever, under any provision of this Act, the Commissioner is authorised to agree to pay the whole or any portion of the expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he shall do so on such terms and at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee as aforesaid.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Commissioner on behalf of Corporation to agree with the owner of any land or of any interest in land needed by the Corporation for the purposes of any scheme under Chapter XIII or with the owner of any right which may have been created by legislative enactment over any street forming part of the land so needed, for the purchase of such land or of any interest in such land or for compensating the owner of any such right in respect of any deprivation thereof or interference therewith.

(4) No contract for the acquisition of any immovable property or of any interest therein or any right thereto or the payment of any compensation under sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) shall be valid, if the price or compensation to be paid for such property or interest or right exceeds rupees five thousand unless and until such contract has been approved by the Corporation.

(5) Every contract or other instrument relating to the acquisition of immovable property or any interest therein or any right thereto shall be executed by the Commissioner, shall have the common seal of the Corporation affixed thereto in the presence of two officers nominated by the Commissioner and shall also have the signature of the said two officers.

(6) No contract for the acquisition of immovable property or any interest therein or any right thereto not executed as provided in sub-section (4) shall be binding on the Corporation.

(7) The foregoing provisions of this section which apply to an original contract relating to the acquisition of immovable property, or any interest therein, or any right thereto, shall be deemed to apply also to any variation or discharge of such contract."

4. A perusal of the impugned provision does not reflect that it confers a power of compulsory acquisition in exercise of the powers of eminent domain upon the Corporation. The reading of the provisions indicate that taking over of the land is based upon agreement between the party with the Corporation and in lieu thereof certain compensation is also to be paid.

5. We are, therefore, not satisfied that the impugned provisions suffer from legislative incompetence or are overlapping the