Roads and open spaces in an approved layout vest in the Municipal Corporation as per the applicable layout rules; therefore, owners cannot claim compensation for land already designated as a road in such approved layouts.

:: ORDER ::

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in not initiating any proceedings either under Section 146 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or under Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land of the petitioner in Survey No.54, Dairy Village, Aravind Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad to an extent of 221.62 Sq.Yards (158.33+31.66+31.66 Sq.Yards) and paying compensation thereof though the possession has already been taken by the respondent No.2 and laid the Road as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also order of this Hon’ble Court dated 10.07.2003 in W.P.No.4028 of 1995 by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquiring the land in Survey No.54, Daira Village, Aravind Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad and pay compensation to the petitioners forthwith and to pass such other order or orders...”

Heard Mr. K. Rama Subba Rao, appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

The assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.54 of Daira Village, Aravind Nagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad, admeasuring 597.50 sq. yards and the 2nd petitioner is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 119.50 sq. yards in the said survey number. It is further contended that the petitioners are owners and possessors of total land admeasuring 717.00 sq.yards, an extent of 380 sq.yards was left for the purpose of laying road and 130 sq.yards was held jointly. The petitioners now claim right to an extent of 221.62 sq.yards out of the said 380 sq.yards land which was allotted to them in a suit for partition in O.S. No.565 of 1983 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, FTC, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pursuant to a final decree dated 24.02.2003 and contended that the respondents laid road over the said land without following due procedure as contemplated under law.

Further it is contended that while so, the 2nd respondent, along with staff, came to the petitioners’ land and leveled the land for laying a road without following due process of law and aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner filed W.P. No. 4028 of 1995, before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 10.07.2003 by directing the Municipal Corporation to follow the due procedure under Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and acquire the land by negotiation and or obtaining consent of the petitioners and till such time status quo as on that date was directed to be maintained.

It is further stated that though the 2nd respondent was directed to follow the due procedure under Section 146 of the Act and acquire the land by agreement or obtaining consent of the petitioners, neither acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor any consent was obtained from the petitioners and despite the same, the road was laid on the petitioners’ land about two years prior to the filing of this present writ petition. It is contended that the 1st petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for payment of compensation; however, the 2nd respondent did not consider the request and as such the 2nd respondent deprived the petitioners of the enjoyment of their property and laid road without payment of compensation, contrary to the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 4028 of 1995. Further it is contended that the 2nd respondent being statutory authority is duty bound to pay the compensation to the petitioners by following the due procedure of law and thus defeated the legitimate right of the petitioners.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy,