Telangana High Court
M. Prabhakar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 30 December, 2024
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WP No.10026 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Ms. L.Vani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent
No.2 in paying meager compensation amount for the petitioner’s land
admeasuring 936 Sq. Yards out of 1560 Sq. yards in Sy.No.93/A of
Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
against the consent of the petitioner and against the provisions of the
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the
GHMC Act, 1955‘) as well as the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’) as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
against the Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONER:-
3. Originally, the entire land admeasuring Ac.2.30 guntas situated
in Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Rangareddy District belonging to one Mr.A.Shankaraiah
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
2
S/o.Narayana and his name was also mutated in the revenue records
including Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55. Pattadar passbooks and
title deed were also issued in his favour. The said A.Shankaraiah
along with his sons sold the land admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas out of
Ac.2.30 guntas to Mr. M.Veerappa and Mr.M.Veda Prakash under
registered sale deed bearing Document No.7950 of 1980 dated
25.07.2080. Therefore, left over land was Ac.0.33 guntas.
4. After the demise of A.Shankaraiah, his legal heirs have
succeeded the subject property. Their names were also mutated in the
revenue records and they were also issued pattadar passbooks. The
petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1560 Sq. Yards in
Sy.No.93 of Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”)
from the legal heirs of A.Shankaraiah under a registered sale deed
bearing document No.6211 of 2015, dated 11.08.2015. He is in
continuous and uninterrupted possession of the subject property.
5. The Member of Legislative Assembly of Rajendranagar
Constituency, sought the subject land for the purpose of conducting
Bathukamma festival and other cultural programmes for the locals.
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
3
He persuaded the petitioner to handover the land to the 2nd respondent
assuring him the payment of compensation. On the said persuasion,
the petitioner agreed to give subject property provided that the 2nd
respondent pays twice the market value prevailing as on that date and
accordingly, under pressure and persuasion, issued a consent letter
dated 06.11.2017 seeking an amount of Rs.8,000/- per square yard
which is twice the prevailing market value as compensation. The 2nd
respondent assured the petitioner that the compensation will be paid to
him in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by
providing market value and additional solatium equivalent to 100% of
the market value and therefore, on the said assurance, the petitioner
gave consent seeking for double the market value as prevailing as on
that date. The 2nd respondent kept the proceedings pending for the
reasons best known to him.
6. The 2nd respondent has unilaterally decided that an extent of
624 Sq. yards is within buffer zone and has decided to give TDR at
the rate of 200% and to award compensation for only the balance land
of 936 Sq. yards. Under the pressure of local politicians and
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
4
respondent No.3, they have conducted the Bathukamma festival
celebrations and other activities in the petitioner land promising to pay
suitable compensation and the petitioner agreed for TDR for 40% of
the land and compensation for rest 60% of the land as per Act 30 of
2013, but the same was not paid. After lapse of six years and only in
the month of July, 2023, 2nd respondent disbursed the compensation
amount without considering the market value prevailing as on date is
Rs.8,100/- per Sq. yard and that the petitioner is entitled for
Rs.16,200/- per Sq. yard as per Act, 30 of 2013.
7. The 2nd respondent obtained certain documents such as
affidavit, undertaking, irrevocable GPA etc., from the petitioner under
the pressure. He has also paid an amount of Rs.74,88,000/- vide
cheque bearing No.498369 dated 08.06.2023 to the petitioner towards
compensation. 2nd respondent has also issued TDR certificate dated
09.11.2023 and the petitioner received the same under protest.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, the entire action of the 2nd
respondent in paying meager compensation to him is in violation of
the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955
and also the procedure under the Act, 30 of 2013. Therefore,
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
5
challenging the said action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed
the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF 2ND RESPONDENT:
8. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the
petitioner gave consent in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act,
1955 and on consideration of the same, he has obtained all the
relevant documents. On consideration of the same and also FTL and
Buffer Zone Rules, the 2nd respondent has paid an amount of
Rs.74,88,000/- towards compensation in terms of Section 146 of the
GHMC Act, 1955 and also issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023
to the petitioner. The same was paid on obtaining approval from the
GHMC on 31.10.2022. Having received the said compensation and
TDR Certificate, voluntarily, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition after lapse of nine months. The land in Sy.No.93/A showing
the site bund, Buffer of bund which is falling near downstream side of
palle cheruvu. During the physical verification, it was found that
there are no traces of Nala, however, there is an existence of an
abandoned sluice behind temple. The petitioner by suppressing the
said facts, received the aforesaid compensation and filed the present
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
6writ petition on false and baseless grounds to get more compensation
from the 2nd respondent-Corporation.
9. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the said counter stating
that he gave consent only on the assurance given by the 2nd respondent
that they will pay the compensation as requested by him in his letter
dated 06.11.2017 and 18.12.2018. Though the letter was submitted on
06.11.2017, compensation was paid only on 08.06.2023 and TDR
Certificate was issued only on 09.11.2023 and certain documents such
as affidavit, undertaking, irrevocable GPA etc., were obtained by him
under pressure. Therefore, the entire action of the 2nd respondent in
not paying the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the subject
land is in violation of the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act,
1955 and also the Act, 30 of 2013.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
10. The petitioner acquired the subject property under the registered
sale deed bearing document No.6211 of 2015 dated 11.08.2015. Thus,
there is no dispute that the petitioner is an absolute owner and
possessor of the subject property. It is the specific contention of the
petitioner that he gave consent to hand over the subject land to the 2nd
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
7
respondent for the purpose of celebrations of Bathukamma Festival
under the pressure built up by local MLA and assurance given by 2nd
respondent to pay compensation. 2nd respondent has paid
compensation of Rs.74,88,000/- in respect of 60% of the land and
issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023 in respect of 40% of the
subject land. The 2nd respondent has specifically mentioned the said
fact in a tabular form in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit. Thus,
according to the 2nd respondent, there is no error in paying the
compensation and issuing TDR Certificate to the petitioner. But,
according to the petitioner, he gave consent only on the pressure of
local MLA and on the assurance given by 2nd respondent to pay
compensation.
11. It is apt to note that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated
06.11.2017 giving consent to the 2nd respondent to hand over the
subject land on the condition of payment of that suitable land
compensation i.e., Rs.8,000/- per square yard. Thus, according to the
petitioner, 2nd respondent did not pay compensation and also TDR as
requested by the petitioner. Though the consent letter is dated
06.11.2017, compensation was paid only on 08.06.2023 and TDR
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
8
Certificate was issued on 09.11.2023, that too, compensation was paid
considering market value of the subject property of the year 2017.
12. In the light of the said rival submissions, as discussed supra,
there is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and
possessor of subject property. There is also no dispute that local MLA
persuaded the petitioner to hand over the subject property for the
purpose of construction of Bathukamma festival platform and also for
other cultural activities.
13. Thus, the 2nd respondent has the following two options to
acquire the subject property.
1) By following the procedure laid down under Section 146 of the
GHMC Act, 1955.
2) By following the procedure laid down under the Act, 30 of
2013.
14. Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 deals with Acquisition of
immovable property by agreement, the same is relevant and it is
extracted hereunder:
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
9“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 at such rates or prices or 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 or 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
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
10payment of any compensation under sub-section (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] [Substituted by Act No.3 of 1994.] and shall also
have the signature of the said [two officers] [Substituted by Act
No.15 of 2013.].
(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.”
15. It is also relevant to note that Section 147 of the GHMC
Act deals with disposal of property and interests therein. The same is
relevant and it is extracted hereunder:
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
11“147. Disposal of property and interests therein.
(1)Whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire any
immovable property under the last preceding section by
agreement, the Government may, in their discretion, upon the
application of the Commissioner, made with the approval of the
Standing Committee and subject to the other provisions of this
Act, order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on
behalf of the Corporation, [in accordance with the provisions of
the [Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of
1894)] [Substituted by Act No.14 of 1989.] as amended from
time to time as if such property were land needed for a public
purpose within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.]
(2)The amount of compensation awarded and all other
charges incurred in the acquisition of any such property shall,
subject to all other provisions of this Act, be forthwith paid by
the Commissioner and thereupon the said property shall vest in
the Corporation. Disposal of Property.”
16. If the petitioner (land owner) fails to give his consent to the 2nd
respondent for acquisition and handing over the subject property, the
only option left to the 2nd respondent is to acquire the same by
following the procedure laid down under the Act 30 of 2013. Detailed
procedure is laid down under Section 30 of 2013. It is the specific
contention of 2nd respondent that the petitioner gave consent to hand
over the subject property, therefore, there is no need of referring to the
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
12
detailed procedure prescribed under the Act 30 of 2013 to decide the
lis involved in the present writ petition.
17. In Church of South India Trust Association Vs. The
Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation and Ors 1, Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh, categorically held that any acquisition without
following procedure contemplated under Section 146 of the GHMC
Act, 1955, is illegal. Mere fact of acceptance of some amount by the
person, does not dispense with the statutory requirement nor validate
the legally invalid transaction as there cannot be estoppel as against
law. Division Bench considered the procedure laid down under
Sections 146 and 147 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and on examination of
the facts, it was held that the entire action of Municipal Corporation
with regard to acquisition of land is illegal.
18. It is the specific contention of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd
respondent had acquired the subject property from the petitioner in
terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. There is no dispute
1
2015 (4) ALD 448
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
13
that the 2nd respondent has power to acquire the subject property from
the petitioner in terms of Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955, but at
the same time, he has to follow the entire procedure laid down under
Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
19. The mandatory requirements of Section 146 of the GHMC Act
are as follows:
1) There should be an agreement on such terms at such rates or
prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the
Standing Committee,
2) The Commissioner has power to agree to pay the whole or any
portion of the expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he
shall do on such terms and at rates or prices or at rates or prices
not exceeding such maxima, as should be approved by the
Standing Committee, and
3) The Commissioner can negotiate with the owner of lands for
payment of interest.
Thus, 2nd respondent shall follow the said mandatory requirements in
terms of Section 146 of the GHMC while acquiring the subject
property of the petitioner.
20. As per Section 147 of the GHMC Act, 1955, whenever the
Commissioner is unable to acquire any immovable property under the
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
14
last preceding section by agreement, the Government may, in their
discretion, upon the application of the Commissioner, made with the
approval of the Standing Committee and subject to the other
provisions of this Act, order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the
same on behalf of the Corporation, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 30 of 2013 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The amount
of compensation awarded and all other charges incurred in the
acquisition of any such property shall, subject to all other provisions
of this Act, be forthwith paid by the Commissioner and thereupon the
said property shall vest in the Corporation. Thus, 2nd respondent
shall follow the aforesaid procedure.
21. Any acquisition of land by the 2nd respondent without
following the aforesaid mandatory procedure is illegal as held by this
Court in Ushodaya Publications, Hyderabad Vs. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2, Velisetty Deva Kumar vs.
the State of Andhra Pradesh 3 and Church of South India Trust
Association (supra).
2
2001 (3) ALD 173
3
2000 (3) ALD 407
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
15
22. In the light of the same and principle laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner has
submitted a letter dated 06.11.2017 to the ACP, Circle-6 GHMC,
Rajendranagar stating that as per the request of MLA, Rajendranagar,
he is giving consent to hand over the land to an extent of 1560 Sq.
yards subject to the condition that “suitable compensation has to be
paid at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per Sq. yard.”
23. Thus, vide the aforesaid letter, the petitioner specifically stated
that he has given consent on the request made by local MLA on the
condition of payment of suitable compensation, at the rate of 8,000/-
per Sq. yard and he requested the 2nd respondent to pay the
compensation ‘as early as possible’.
24. Perusal of record also would reveal that vide letter dated
27.06.2016, 2nd respondent informed the District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District that the Local MLA submitted a representation dated
18.06.2015 for the purpose of construction of Bathukamma platform
and also other cultural programmes in the open land i.e., admeasuring
2060 Sq. yards in Sy.No.93/A situated at Mailardevpally Village,
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
16
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District organized by the
Government of Telangana.
25. He has also referred the names of M.Jagaeesh Reddy, owner of
land admeasuring 1560 Sq. yards and Amanchi Sunil Kumar, owner
of land admeasuring 500 Sq. yards. It is further stated that the owners
of the land agreed to part with the above said land for the said purpose
subject to payment of suitable compensation.
26. Thus, local MLA requested the Collector and also GHMC to
acquire the land for the said purpose. On receipt of the said
representation, vide proceedings dated 02.09.2015, while enclosing
copy of the said representation of local MLA dated 18.06.2015, the
District Collector requested the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar,
Rajendranagar to go through the contents of the communication in
detail and to enquire into with reference to the record and the ground
position of the site and submit report duly obtaining the written
consent of the pattadar with probable cost of the land by keeping in
view of the Land Procurement Scheme Launched by the Government
vide G.O.Ms. No.123 dated 30.07.2015 to proceed further with the
matter immediately.
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
17
27. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendra
Nagar Mandal has conducted the joint inspection along with
Executive Engineer, North Tank Division, Buddhabhavan and
Assistant City Planner, Circle-6, GHMC, Hyderabad. The file was
forwarded to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC,
Hyderabad to offer his remarks on the ownership title and status of the
land. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition,
GHMC, Hyderabad has reported that the proposed site is adjacent to
‘Pallecheruvu’ and it is covered in Sy.No.93/A, which is paid land as
per Pahani and Pattadar name was mentioned as A.Naresh Kumar in
Col.No.12 and as per the documents produced by the applicant Sri
M.Prabhakar Reddy has purchased the said property from A.Naresh
Kumar to an extent of 1560 Sq. yards.
28. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent in the said letter dated
27.06.2016 that the land owner one M.Prabhakar Reddy i.e., the
petitioner herein has given consent to the GHMC agreeing to hand
over the said land subject on the condition that the suitable land
compensation has to be paid as per the present market value in the
area and as per the new Land Acquisition Act, 30 of 2013.
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
18
29. Stating so, the 2nd respondent has submitted proposals to the
District Collector, Rangareddy District.
30. As per the Market Value Certificate dated 06.11.2017 issued by
the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, the market value as on the said date
with regard to the land in Sy.No.93/A of Mailardevpally Village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is Rs.4,000/- per square
yard.
31. Vide his letter dated 06.11.2017 though the petitioner requested
the 2nd respondent to settle the matter as early as possible, 2nd
respondent slept over almost six years.
32. Vide letter dated 18.12.2018, the petitioner informed the 2nd
respondent that he is willing to accept the TDR Certificate as per the
Act to the extent of the affected area of the subject property i.e., 40%
out of total area. Hence, he requested the 2nd respondent to pay
compensation in terms money in so far as 60% of the subject land and
issue TDR Certificate in respect of balance 40% out of total land at an
earliest. Even then, the 2nd respondent did not act upon early. 2nd
respondent has paid compensation of Rs.74,88,000/- vide check
No.498369 dated 08.06.2023 and TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023.
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
19
Thus, there is abnormal delay in completing the acquisition process.
The said delay is explained by 2nd respondent. The same cannot be
attributed to the petitioner.
33. According to the 2nd respondent, as requested by the petitioner
vide his representation dated 18.12.2018, he has calculated
compensation in respect of 60% of the land i.e., 936 Sq. yards and
paid total compensation amount i.e., 74,88,000/- on 08.06.2023 vide
cheque No.498369 considering the market value as on 06.11.2017.
He has also issued TDR Certificate dated 09.11.2023 in respect of
balance 40% of the land i.e., 624 Sq. yards at the rate of 200%. Thus,
according to the petitioner, the said calculation is in violation of the
procedure laid down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act and also
G.O.Ms.No.330, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
(Plg.II(i)) Department, dated 28.12.2017.
34. As per the Market Value Certificate dated 23.03.2022 issued by
the Sub Registrar, Rajendra Nagar, the market value in respect of the
land in Sy.No.93/A is Rs.8100/- per square yard. Therefore, 2nd
respondent calculated the market value as on 06.11.2017, but paid the
compensation only on 08.06.2023. The same is arbitrary and illegal.
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
20
35. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
also contended that, though consent letter was dated 06.11.2017,
compensation was paid on 08.06.2023 and TDR was issued only on
09.11.2023. He has also specifically contended that the GHMC
authorities have issued TDR Certificate only on 09.11.2023 by
calculating at the rate of 40% of the land.
36. Thus, according to the petitioner, the entire action of respondent
No.2 in making the aforesaid payment is in violation of the procedure
laid down under section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
37. As discussed supra, though the 2nd respondent obtained consent
letters dated 06.11.2017 and 18.12.2018 from the petitioner on the
condition of payment of suitable compensation i.e., Rs.8,000/- per
square yard (as on the said date, market value is Rs.4,000/- per Square
yard) and settle the dispute as early as possible, 2nd respondent did not
acquire the said property by following procedure laid down under
Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955 and made payment in respect of
60% of the subject property and issued TDR Certificate in respect of
40% of the subject property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.330, dated
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
21
28.12.2017. The 2nd respondent did not obtain any agreement from
the petitioner in terms of Section 146(1) of the GHMC Act, 1955.
38. Perusal of record also would reveal that the petitioner received
an amount of Rs.74,88,000/- under protest and he has submitted a
letter to 2nd respondent that effect. 2nd respondent has also admitted
the said fact in the counter affidavit. Thus, the 2nd respondent paid the
compensation in utter violation of the procedure laid down under
Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. The 2nd respondent did not
enter into an agreement with regard to acquisition of the said land and
he has not paid the compensation in terms of Section 146 of the
GHMC Act, 1955 by considering the market value. The 2nd
respondent cannot pay compensation on 08.06.2023 i.e., after seven
years by considering the market value as on the date of the said
consent letter i.e. 06.11.2017. Thus, the entire procedure adapted by
the 2nd respondent is in violation of procedure under Section 146 of
the GHMC Ac, 1955.
39. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that he gave
the aforesaid consent letters on the pressure of local MLA. The said
fact was also mentioned by 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
22
27.06.2016 and he has referred representation dated 18.06.2015 of
local MLA.
40. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has specifically stated
that he has received compensation cheque bearing No.498369 dated
08.06.2023.
41. A perusal of the said affidavit, declaration and general power of
attorney of the petitioner would reveal that the 2nd respondent has
taken formats with blanks and filled the same later. In the declaration-
cum-undertaking, it is mentioned that the petitioner handing over the
physical possession of the subject property for the purpose of ‘road
widening affected area of its property’ and there is no threat or
coercion by any one.
42. The officials of the 2nd respondent obtained the said declaration-
cum-undertaking without application of mind. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the entire action of the 2nd respondent in
trying to acquire the land of the petitioner, payment of the aforesaid
compensation and TDR Certificate is in violation of the procedure laid
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
23
down under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1955. Therefore, the
same is declared as illegal.
43. The proposal of respondent No. 2 for construction of
Bathukamma platform and acquisition of land for cultural activities is
highly appreciable. At the same time, he has to strictly follow the
procedure under GHMC Act, 1955 or Act 30 of 2013, failing which it
amounts to violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
44. It is apt to note that right to property is a human right as also a
constitutional right though it is not a fundamental right. A person
cannot be deprived of his property. If the State intends to appropriate a
private property without the owner’s consent by acting under the
statutory provisions for compulsory acquisition, the procedure
authorized by law has to be mandatorily and compulsory followed.
45. It is also apt to note that the right to pay compensation or the
obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India, it can be inferred in that Article as held by
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
24
the Apex Court in K.T.Plantation Private Limited vs. State of
Karnataka 4.
46. Thus, the right to property may not be a fundamental right any
longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India and a human right as held by the Apex Court in
Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbai Patel and
others 5. In view of the mandate and Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the
authority of law. The said principle was also reiterated by the Apex
Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and
others 6.
47. As discussed supra, in the present case, 2nd respondent did not
follow the said mandatory procedure laid down under Section 146 of
the GHMC Act. Therefore, the entire action of the 2nd respondent is
arbitrary and illegal.
4
2011 9 SCC 1
5
(2008) 4 SCC 649
6
Manu/SC/0580/2020 = (2020) 9 SCC 356
KL,J
wp_10026_2024
25
48. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he has not
handed over the subject property and it is open land. Photographs
filed by both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent would also reveal
the said fact.
49. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
petitioner to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.74,88,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of encashment of
the cheque till the date of payment to the 2nd respondent within a
period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, 2nd respondent shall initiate procedure afresh for acquisition
of the subject property by strictly following the procedure laid down
under Section 146 of the GHMC Act, 1925 or Act 30 of 2013 as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 30.12.2024
LPD/Vvr
[ad_1]
Source link