S. Ram Reddy v. 1. State of Telangana

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. SHARATH Counsel 1br the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel lbr the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRt V. NARSTMHA GOUD, SC N 1 OF 3;Jlatx"[333,*31t,t3]3,?.#iilf ?,i%,lil,1,Ta j;y#"fr?Bl,,f 3"f 3* .PETITIONER AND 1 Stat,: of Telangana, Rep. and Urban Developmerit riat, Municipal Administration erabad

2. Hyderabad Metrooolitan Developmert Authority, Rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner Diitrict Commerir-;ic6ft'ptix'Ii,i;iii.tritir" L Btock Tarnaka, Hyderabad 3 kng Acquisition officer, Hyderabad.Metroporitan DeveropmentAuthoritv Btock - A, District commer6iaa Compt;;Ei,i"'il,' [li,i""Lo"d ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstant;es stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of V\rrit of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the Respondents in not allotting 10c'0 square yards of deveroped rand towards compensation for acquiring the land in lieu of monetary payment in Survey Nos.SO0 and 501 of Uppal Bhagayath, Hyderabad by declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in No.LA/363/2004 dated 31t1ol2o,l6 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary, (b) consequenfl y direct the 2nd Respondent to aflot a square commerciar deveroped ..7 plot of 1000 square yards on the main,road of Uppal, and (c)pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of possession tiil handing over of developed plot to Petitioner or (d) alternatively to re-deliver the land in Survey Nos.500 and 501 of Uppal Bhagayath, Hyderabad in an extent of Ac.1-00 to the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to keep one plot of 1000 square yards in Plot No.180 of Uppal Bhagayath, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between:

1. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Metropolitan Commissioner District Commeriial Complex, Administrdtive L Bloik Tarnaka, Hyderabad

2. !gn{ Acgtpition.Officer, Hyderabad,Metropolitan Development Authority Block - A, District Commercial Complex Tainaka, Hyderabad AND ...PET|TIoNERS/RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3

1. S. Ram Reddy, Slo.. La!9-9 _R-aT Bggqy,tndian, Aged about 60 years, occ. Business, R/o. H.No.8-2-68411115, Road N6.12 Banjara 'Hiils, Hyderabad ...1 2. State of Telangana, Rep.!y its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration ST RESPoNDENTMRIT PETITIoNER and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderadad ...2ND RESpoNDENT/I sr RESpoNDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt1610212023in W.P No 1836 of 2O2Oin the interest of justice and fair play Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI T. SHARATH Counselfor the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRt V. NARSIMHA GOUD, SC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER rHE HON'BLE SRI 'USTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare :he action of the respondents in not allotting plot No.1g0 admeasuring 1000 square yards of developed plot situated at Uppal Bhagayath Main Road, Hyderabad to the petitioner towards compensation for giving the land admeasuring Ac,1.0O guntas in Sy.Nos.500 and 501 of Uppal Bhagayath, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona l.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: (a) The respondent No.2 - Hyderabad Metropolitan Developnlent Authority (HMDA) acquired the lands at Uppal Bhagayath and Ramanthapur Bhagayath under the Musi River C,lnservation and River Front Development project. The Government issued Section 4(1) notification on 23.0g.2005 and Section 6 declaration on 05.07.2006 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short'the Act'). As there was protest for acquisition of land, the authorities negotiated with the land owners and proposed to acquire Ac.828.25 guntas of land for the above referred purpose 2 under Public Private Partnership and allot 1000 sq. yards of developed plot for each acre of land. (b) Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.36 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Depaftment dated

22.Ot.2OLl. As most of the farmers accepted for such scheme, they handed over their land. Likewise the petitioner surrendered Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.500 and 501 of Uppal Bhagayath, which was taken over by the respondents. The land of the petitioner was already developed and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Petrol Pump and Marble Shop were being operated in the said land for more than 10 years. The petitioner was promised by the respondent No.2 that he would be given 1000 sq. yards of developed land as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.Ol.20t1-. Believing the respondents, the petitioner handed over possession of Ac.1.00 guntas of land and unfortunately, the compensation was not paid to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner made request to the authorities to allot Plot No.180 in the developed layout. The respondents got issued sale notification proposing to sell commercial amenities Phase-l layout for Plot Nos.18O, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 and 187 at the minimum upset price of Rs.40,000/- per sq. yard. The authorities have shown Plot No.180 as a road access to the above plots.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is conter ded that: a) Several land owners filed WP.No.17005 of 2006 and batch challenging the land acquisition proceedings No.GLl4240lO5 dated

23.08.2005. Interim stay was granted initially. Due procedure of law was followed and general award was passed to the extent of the land, which is not covered by Court stay. The Government agreed to allot 1000 sq. yards developed plot for one acre of land in lieu of mandatory compensation under Section 31(3) of the Act, as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.OL.2OlL. b) 'Ihe petitioner claimed patta to an extent of 0-05.5549 guntas for which he was allotted 138.87 sq. yards of developed land vide award No.LA/363/t56/O5 dated 11.01.2012 and the remaining extent of O.34.445L guntas, claimed by the petitioner, is covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and hence, the compensation was not awarded. As per G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 14.02.2017, the covernment permitted the HMDA to allot/award 600 sq. yards per acre to the land covered under t:he Urban Land Ceiling and accordingly, the petitioner was allotted 516.675 sq. yards of land for an extent of O-34.445t guntas. r T I ' 4 c) The land of the petitioner is abutting the Inner Ring Road and as per the instructions of the Government vide Memo No.18829ltL/20L2 dated 01.08.2015, the Metropolitan Commissioner, vide proceedings No.l-4/363 l2OO5 dated 31.10.2016 allotted Plot No.181 admeasuring 666.675 sq. yards and the allotment has become final. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek allotment of Plot No.180. The family of the petitioner owns 12 acres of land for which compensation was awarded in terms of G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.OL.z0tl.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.500 and 501 of Uppal Bhagayath was not declared as surplus land. The possession was taken from the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation has to be awarded under the said Act or G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.OL.2OLL, which was a special scheme. The petitioner purchased the subject land under registered sale deed bearing document No.8845 of 2000 dated 14.10.2000 from one Yedla Srinivas and others, represented by their GPA, for a sale consideration of Rs.4,90,00O/-. Thus, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and as there was not dispute with regard to ULC, the petitioner was entitled for compensation of 1000 sq. yards of land for one acre of his acquired land. 5

5. Per contra, Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HtvlDA, submitted that several land owners have come forward and ar;reed to receive compensation as per G.O.Ms.No.36 dated

22.OL.2OLL and G.O.Ms.No.39 dated L4.O2.2OL7. The land in Uppal and Ramanthapur were part of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and many of the lands were included in ULC. However, in order to give ,, quietus to the litigation and also ensure smooth implenlentation of Musi River Conservation and River Front Development Project, the Government in principle agreed to grant compensation of 1000 sq. yards for clear title acquired land of one acre e;ach and 600 sq. yards for one acre of land covered by ULC dispute.

6. -l-he petitioner purchased Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.500 and 501 of Uppal Kalan Village under registered sale deed rearing document No.8845 of 20OO dated 11.10.2000. The contents of the sale deed disclose that there was no master plan for Uppal Kalan Village in the year 1976, when the ULC Act came into force (17.02.1976) and as such, the ULC Act is not attracted; the Uppal Kalan was included in the master plan with effect fiom 29.09.1980. It was further mentioned in the sale deed that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the master plan. which came into existence after the enactment of the ULC Act, 1976, cannot be 6 made applicable for the purpose of determining the nature of the land, which was not covered by the date of commencement of the uLC Act, L976 i.e. 17.O2.L976. The relevant portion of the sale deed is extracted hereunder: t' "situated within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and land hereby conveyed is Agricultural Land as per Revenue Records and also being mainly used for purpose of Agriculture even before and as well as from the commencement of U.L.C. Act till date as I evident from the certified copies of pahanies and there was no Master plan for the village Uppal Kalan in the year 1976, when the ULC Act came into force as such the said land was not attracted by the provisions of ULC Act 1976. AND WHEREAS the Master Plan for the area out side the limits of MCH including Uppal Kalan Village came into force with effect from 29-09-1980. And the Land bearing Survey Nos.500 & 501 were earmarked is the said master plan for other than agricultural purpose and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hatiya Mohammadi Begum V/s State of Uttar Pradesh held the Master plan which came into existence after the enactment of ULC Act 1976, cannot be made applicable for the purpose of the determining the nature of the land which were not covered by any master plan on the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. 17-O2-L976. As such not with standing earmarking of the land in the master plan for other than agricultural purpose, which came into existence subsequently the said land shall not cease to be agricultural land merely on the pretext that the said land was earmarked for other than Agricultural. i i i 7 AND WHEREAS the Govt. of A.p. Revenue Dept. by Memo No.83762/UC-(I)/95-1, Dt:20-12-1005, directed the S.O. & C.A ULC Hyderabad and commissioner of ULC Hyderabad to the effect that the subsisting judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Hatiya Mohammadi Begum V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh is the law of the day has to be followed and the State Govt. in No.83762/UC-1(1)/95-3, Dt.02-09-1996, to follow the said judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme in letter and in spirit and the Central Govt. by its letter Dt.01-081996 and D.O. Letter No.9/a/UC-I, Dt.20-09-1996 also advised the state Govt. to follow the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court."

7. section 5(a) of the ULC Act says that any sale transaction after tlre ULC Act came into force is void. The petitioner purchased the land of 11.10.2000. The judgment in sMT. ATrA MOHAMMEDT BEGUM v. srATE oF up1 was overruled by the judgment of the Suprerne Court in STATE OF Ap v. N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY2.

8. '[he sale deed of the petitioner was registered without any objecti,cn by the registering authority. The land of the petitioner w?S pr€sUmably not declared as surplus on the date of registration. It is not stated by the respondent in which of the proceedings the land of the petitioner was declared surplus. There are not detaits furnish,ed in the counter affidavit of the respondent. Based on the judgmernt of the supreme court and clarification issued by the Government dated 20.L2.1995 the sale deed of the petitioner t RrR r993 SC 2465 =(r993)2 SCC 546 'ArR 2002 SC 5 : (2002) t SCC227 i I I t L was registered, when the judgment of the Supreme Court in f ATIA MOHAMMEDI BEGUM'S case (1 supra) was holding the field.

9. No doubt the judgment was overruled in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in AUDIKESAVA REDDY's case (2 supra). However, on the date of purchase, the petitioner acquired valid title to the land. Assuming that the vendor of the petitioner or third party was declared surplus, it needs to be noted that neither there is any material before this Court nor title of the petitioner under sale deed is disputed by the respondents. If the petitioner did not have title to the propefty, there was no occasion for the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner. In case, there was an ULC dispute, then until the proceeding have attained finality under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act, the petitioner could not have been dispossessed. It is also relevant to note that the ULC Act, L976 was repealed by viftue of ULC Repeal Act, 1999, in the State of AP with effect from 27.03.2008. The petitioner, admittedly, is in possession of the property. In fact, there is no dispute, whatsoever, that the respondents have taken possession of the land from the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, thus, compensation has to be paid under the said Act only. As the petitioner is in possession of the land, the proceedings, if any, under the ULC Act insofar as the petitioner is concerned, / 9 assurning are pending, on the date of acquisition stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. WP.No.1836 of 2O2O: 10. In view of the order passed in wp.No.27745 of zoLg, this (lourt is not inclined to consider the reliefs sought by the petitioner in Para 12(c) and 12(d) of the writ affidavit. Insofar as reliefs in para 12(a) and 12(b) are concerned, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to allot commercially developed plot of 1000 sq. yards in uppal Main Road to the petitioner in lieu of acquired land of Ac.1.00 guntas on the main road of Sy.Nos.500 and 5()1 of Uppal Bhagayath. The writ petition is disposed of.

11. In the result, wp.No.27745 of zoLg is allowed and WP.Nc,.1836 of 2O2O is disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII To, AssrsrArf;f,i?3,:H'Xt G SECTION OFFTCER

1. Ther principal S oe6rartmerTts;3,"JEi?3(,ElXl5[iitflTJli[l1i;o3,#rbanDeveropment 'ili:..t{[.;f 'J33"?""ffi iiifJfi '"?il;:xifi fl [i5il;S,.";mr,,pfl;,,0,0 'btl.i:ts3ill8i"?*ffi !#tirf,ffi?"y?I:,ff;5:?,i.:Jgssf entAuthor*y 4. One CC to Sri T. Sharath, Advocate tOpUCI t ;t L I T I I I Er- !&:Effi:. S. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 6. One CC to SriV. Narasimha Goud, SC [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies TJ PMK tu $ HIGHI COURT DATE:D :11tOBl2O2S COIT,IMON ORDER wP.NOS.2774s oF 2o1g AND WRIT pETtTtON NO.1B36 OF 2020 i, I I .J.,.'... i.J' t i.)g lHE s 1 i lr,!i?, 2{1,2fr t c r i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION NO.2 7745OF 2019 oF rHE wRrr pErrrroN No.1836 3l?r?';rposrNc WITHOUT COSTS '03