The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not grant a legal right to receive alternate land in lieu of monetary compensation, and the Land Acquisition Officer lacks the authority to allot government land.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting an extent of 16.4 square yards of land abutting the petitioner’s premises bearing No.1-1-258/10- 11, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, on the western side, in lieu of acquisition of 22.6 square yards on the eastern side for road widening, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to allot the said land.

2. Heard Sri Akshat Sanghi, learned counsel representing Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-GHMC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father purchased the subject property admeasuring 34 square yards, situated on the main road between Chikkadapally and RTC X Roads, and after his demise, the petitioners became legal heirs and the said property is used for commercial purposes. While so, for the purpose of road widening, the respondents acquired 22.6 square yards from the petitioner’s subject property, leaving only a small unusable extent, while there exists an adjacent vacant land of 16.4 square yards on the western side belonging to GHMC, which is unused and serves no public purpose. He further submits that the petitioners made representations requesting allotment of the said vacant land in lieu of the acquired land instead of monetary compensation, and that despite repeated requests, the respondents did not consider their representations and proceeded to pass an award granting compensation, which action of the respondents is arbitrary and causes grave hardship to the petitioners.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents-GHMC submits that the land acquisition was carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 were duly issued, enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted, and notices were served to the petitioners, but they failed to participate in the award enquiry or submit objections at the relevant stage, and accordingly an award was passed on 16.02.2012 and compensation of Rs.9,34,556/- was determined and deposited. He further submits that there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for allotment of alternate land in lieu of acquired land, nor the Land Acquisition Officer is the competent authority to allot government land and such a request must be made before appropriate authorities. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record.

6. It is not in dispute that an extent of 22.6 square yards of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose, namely road widening. The acquisition proceedings were completed and an award dated 16.02.2012 was passed. Despite the petitioners seeking allotment of alternate land, compensation was determined and deposited. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide for allotment of alternate land as a matter of right. The authority conducting acquisition proceedings is not competent to allot government land in lieu of monetary compensation. The petitioner’s request for allotment of alternate land requires consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners are permitted to approach respondent Nos.5 and 6/appropriate authorities by filing an appropriate application seeking allotment of alternate land.

(ii) Upon such application being filed, the said respondents/appropriate authorities shall consider the petitioners’ request and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and due process.

(iii) It is made clear that the compensation already awarded shall remain subject