The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following ORDER ,,1 ) LNA, J WP.No.12081 of 2014 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY WP.No,1208l o12014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is fited to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner to an extent of 126.25 square meters in Plot No. 135, situated at Masid Banda in Sy.No.l92 of Kondapur Vitlage, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dislrict, vide proceedings No.RW/TPS/Cir-XI/GHMC/2012, dated 01.06.2013, of respondent No.3, rvithout lbllowing the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the L.A.Act') read with A.P. Arnendment Act, 2008. as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct thc respondents-Corporation to pay compensation to the petitioner for the land acquired by initiating proceedings under the L.A. Act.

2. Heard Sri Suderndra Desai learned Counsel lor the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy learned Standing Counsel for GHMC

3. The case of the petitioner', briefly stated, as narrated in the q tfidavit fited in suppoft of the Writ Petition, is that he is the owner \ 4 LNA, J tt/P.1o.12081oJ2014 and occupicr of residential Plot admeasuring 550 square yards bearins |Jos.12ii and 135, situated in Sy.No.19i (Masid Banda) of Kondapur' \.illage, Serilingampalli Mandal. Rar.re Redd1, Districr, having purclrascd the sar-ne lrom one Kodichcrlr lvlallesha under registerecl sale cleed, dated 25.07. 1991. While sr,. respondent No.j issued a letter dated 01.06.2013, to the petitioner :;tatii.rg thar in the proposed road rvidening from HCU Bus stop to Fiotanical gardens via \,las-jeed Banda, the plot of thc petitioner r() ln extcnr ol I 12.8 square meLers rvoirld be affectcd, for whicl-r, ir: u,ould be given COI]CESSIONS AS prescribed rn GO.VIs.Ni:..:79, Nlur.ricipal Admir.ristration, dated 01 .04.2008. That the rcritioner, having fbund that the concessions given as per the srrid GO are not benellcial to hirn, got issued a legal notice dated ):i.07 2013 calling upon the respondents to follow the procedure c,rr.tcLnplated under the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquiring hi:; lancl said to be affected in road widening. But, as there was no r€sponse lrom the respondents, the petitioner again got issued anot.rer notice dated 13 .01 .2014, however, there was no response frolr the respondents. It is furtl'rel averred that on 22.02.2014, the pelitioner found some digging nrark and cementing work in his tand aLrd theretbre, he i ! t i 5 LNA, J lYP.No.12081 oJ 2014 hled the present Writ Petition challenging the action of the respondents in encroaching his land u,ithout following due process of lau

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject propefiy and a paft of his land is said to be affected in road widening. He further submitted that petitioner cannot be forced or cornpelled to accept fbr acquisition of his property under the guise of a Govemment Order, without paying compensation to him as per the prevailing market value by duly following the procedure contemplatcd under the L.A. Act

5. In support of his contentions, lcamed counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the erstrvhile High Court of Andhra Prades[.r in M/s Ushodaya Publicatiorts, Eeenadu Complex, H),tlerabatl Vs. Commissioner, MCH und anothert.

6. In the said judgment, the question that fett tbr consideration is whether the consent given by the landlady for acquisition of the propefiy without giving notice or opportunity to the lessee is binding on the lessee and the said point was answered in negative L 2001 (2) At.'t 662 (FB) 6 LNA, ] llP.No.l20E I of 2014

7. The facts of the said case and the f'acts oftle present casc are entirely distinct and hence, the ratio laid don'n in thc said judgment is not applicable to tl-re instant case

8. Learned counseI for petitioner also re]iecl uporr the -judgment datecl 20.01.2015 passed by the erstwhile IJigh (.ourt ol Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.37983 of 2014 {Usha Rrni L's. State of Andhrt Prodesh, rep, b.y its Principal Secretury aud three othersj rvhelein.:r learncd single Judge allowed Writ Pcrtition Llirecting the respondent taclein-Visakhapatnarn Urban Derel:pment Authority to initiate procecdings as pcl the provisions of the Right to Fair' (lompcnsati<-.n and Transparency in Lanrl ,A,cquisition, Rchabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for ai:quisition of the entire lanrl or,vned by the petitioner therein fol lrad rvidening and lla)' cornpcnsation to her, r'vhile observing as here-rnder:- ''Section 146 oJ the GHMC Act contemplate.\ ucquisition of imntot,able properq, by agreement l,'':lv,eetn the ()omntis.vioner and the ov'ner of the land it ;lrc cvent tlrc .said iancl is required by the Corporation; an,7 when he is unabic to do so, Section 117 of the GHMC ,1ct proyides.for acqttisition of the land under the provisior s of the Land Acqu,sition Act, 1891 as omended from time to tinte. The in Rule 16(a) of the Rules, wlucit sttttcs llrut wtles.; tlrc area alfected in road widenir',g as per tlte -z'provi;;iort 7 LNA, J llP.No.12081 oJ 2014 slatutory plan/master plan road or Circulation network is surrendered free o1'cost, no development permission shall be given, tn my opinion, is ultra vires provisions of the GHMC Act. Rule l6(a) oi the Rules is not itt accordance n,ith llrc GHMC Act, an.d is contrarv to Sectiott l'l6iSectirnt 117 thereof. It is settled law thal in case of coty'lict betvteen delegatecl legislotion and its parent substotltive Act, the latter t:ould prevail (See Nowa Ads vs. Deptt. of Municipal Admn. And Water Supply /11 ) Therefora, the provision requiring Land owner to sttrrender lond free ttJ'cost nterely because a portion of the Land owned by hint is shown as roacl offected in o stalutory) plan/master plan or circulation nefiuork or as required to be vvidened as per road development plon is ultra vires provision oJ'the GHMC Act. Such compulsory deprivation of propertv \rithoul paying onv conlpensation violates Articles l1 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents' cttncltrcl amounts to coercing the petitioner to part with her proper4t without ocquisition. In my opinion, it woulcl be unjttst to make the petilioner to suffer in this nanner. " g. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation contended that the Govemment would pay concessions to the petitioner as per GO.Ms.No.279, Municipal Administration Depaftment, dated 0l .04.2008, to the extent of his land affected in road widening and theretbre, the petitioner would not be put to any loss financially. He fur.ther submitted that the \ \ 8 LNA, J tfP.No.1208l oJ 2014 respondents have in fact addressed a letter dated 01.06.2013 to the petitioner to the said effect and therefore, ther action of the respondcnts proposing to acquire the petitionc:'s land fbr road widening cannot be said to be illegal and arbitri: r_',, and hencc, thc Writ Petition is Iiable to be dislrissed

10. Apr-opos the submissions made by lean-reci :ounsel lor both the parties, the point that arises lor considerati,rn is whether the modes o1- acquisition provided under the provisirrns o1- the Greater Hydelabad it.,lulicipal Corporation Act, 1955, ate at the choice o1- eithel olthe parties or onll, of the acquiring authcrjty? I l. Scction l.i6 of GI IX4C Act provides 1br acquisition of irnrlovablc propcrty required fol public purpose lrv agr-eement. The rvord 'agLeement' deuotes the express agreenront between the Corporaticn, represented by the Commission:r, and the land owner/s thereol-, with regarcl to acceptance of ofl-er ol 'l'DR trSI by the land orvner/s concemed

12. Section 147 of the GHMC Act envisages t1r: procedure to be followed when irnmovable property cannot be acquired by agreement. -l lie said Section postulates thrtt whenever the Commissioner, representing the Cotporation, is u.nable to acquire 9 LNA, J lt/P.No.I208l of 2014 the immovable propefty by agreement with the land owner/s concemed, the same shall be acquired by lollowing the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

13. l-or interpretation of Sections 146 and 147 of the GHMC Act, the language employed in the said provisions needs to be considered for knowing the legislative intent. The language employed in the afbresaid provisions is plain and unambiguous, in which case, the scope of legistation or the intention ol the legislature cannot be enlarged ol changed (See the judgment of the I lor.r'bJe Supreme Court in Bhavnagar [Jniversity Vs. palitana Sugar Mill (Petitioner) Lnt).

14. [n the case on hand, the respondent-Corporation proposed to acquired the land belonging to the petitioner by giving him the concessions as provided for in GO.Ms.No.279, MA, dated 0 I .04.2008, horvever, the petitioner declined to accept the offer of respondents-Corporation with regard to such concessions and called upon the respondents-Corporation to follow the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the lqnd belonging to him. Thus, there is no consensus between the respondent-Corporation and the petitioner-land owner for invoking 2 (zoo:) z scc ut 10 LNA, J t/P.,\'o.I208I ol 20I4 Section 146 of GHMC Act. In other words, the:e is no express agreerlenl. betrveen thc pctitionet and the rcspor dent-Corporation, u,hereundcr the petitioncr accepted the ofit:r rlade bv thc respondent-Corporation to extend the concessionr; as provided in GO.Ms.No.279, dated 01.04.2008. Thus. thc tu.o essential requirernents, i.e., ofl'er and acceptance, to constitute alt agreelnent are not satisfied in the instant case, whic r empowers the respondent.-(lorpolation to invokc Scction 146 of thc GIIMC Act

15. When a simiial issue f-ell fbr consideration before a larger Berrch of Iligh Court ol Bombay in Shree Virutyak lJuilders and Developers, Nogpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and otheri, it was held tlrat rhe acquisition under Section 126(1Xa) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, has to be by consensus betu,een both the pafties and not only r.t the option of the Acquiring authorit.y.

16. Section 146 of the GHMC Act is akin to l}:ction 126(1) (a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Plannin6l Act, 1966 and therefore, the rati6 laid down in the aforesaid j urlgment squarely applies to the case on hand ) 1ZOZ41 S AIR Bom R BO3 LNA, J ll/P.No-12081of2014

17. In the light of the tbregoing reasons, discussion and the lavn' laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar IJniversity's casc (cited supra) and the judgrnent of larger Bench of Itigh Court ol' Bombay in Shree Vino.vak Builders and Developers, Nugpur's case lcitcd supra), this Courl is of thc considered opinion that tbr invoking Section 146 of the GI IMC Act, a consensus bctu'een the respondents-Corporation and petitioncr-land orvner is tnandatorl' and it is not at the option ol the acquiring authority alone. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be lbisted upon to accept the concessions provided lor in GOMs.No.279, dated 01.04.2008 and the respondent-Corporation has to nccessarill fottoiv the due procedure contemplated under the l-and Acquisitiorr Act. 1894, tbr acquiring the subject land belonging to the petitioner.

18. Subject to the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.

19. Miscellaneous petilior-rs pending, if any, shall stand closed' No costs. To /iTRUE COPY/i Sd/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal lscretary, Department of Municipal Adminrstration And Urban - uevelopment. Secretariat, Hyderabad._22. 2. The.Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ^ fbldq Road, Hitl Fort, Adarsh Nagar, HyderabaA.SOOOEa 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabaa nf unilipaf Corporation, Town p1a-lning section, circte XI, SER|LtNGAMeALLy. Rangi Redai-DGiri;i HYDERABAD.-19 -- High Court for the State or Tetangani at Hyj"rJor-J'iirurt 4 Two CCs :o Gp FOR MUNC|PAL AD[/N AND URBAN I)EVELOPMENT, 5 one CC tc, SRt SURENDnn or5Ar-novo;;;;o;,ii6" 6 9.1-g-C^9 rcr 5p1 6 MADHUSuDHAru neooV,"sdi5X,cHr,,lc, Advocate [oPUC] Two CD Copies \ 7 SA PMK W ) ./. j-L c) lr- I \ k 1 o a ..s a'---\'ri' $ \ I :// ,) HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 ORDER WP.No.12081 of 2014 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. G xA )1 t I T I t I