High Court · 2025

Petition uhder Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 oI the constitution of lndia, declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the acquisition orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 in proceedings order B,t136912007 dated- o4l11l2OO8 and also not passing any orders on the representations made by the Petitioner and to take appropriate action against Respondent No' 6 as arbitrary' illegal and unconstitutional violating Article 309 of the Constitution of lndia I D lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation daled 1911112021 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. A. PREM CHAND Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINtSTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI MTDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.S: Gp FOR LAND ACeUIS|TION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - The Court made the following: ORDER 1 ORDER: THE HONtsE SRI]UfiCE T. VTNOD KUMA,R Writ Petitim of 2o22 This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: 'In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the acquisition orders passed by the Respondent No.5 in proceedings order 81136912007 dated 04llU20O8 and also not passing any orders on the representations made by the Petitioner and to take appropriate action against Respondent No.6 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Article 309 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for respondent No.l, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent No.5 and perused the record. Though the name of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent is shown in the cause list, there is no representation on his behalf.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though the respondents- authorities have acquired the property of the 6th respondent by initiating land acquisition proceedings and having passed an award on 04.11.2008, they did not take any steps for implementing the foresaid acquisition order 2 by demolishing the property acquired for which the authorities have also paid compensation to the 6th respondent'

4. Petitioner further contends that on account of the respondents- authorities having acquired the land by paying necessary t:ompensation and not demolishing the property of the 6th respondent' there is |oss to the State Exchequer to a tune of Rs'83,91,734 3] paise anc also the fact that the 6th respondent is continuing to enjoy the propety' though it vested with the GHMC authorities' Thus' he seeks a direction to the to implement the land acquisition award resPondents-authorities dt.04.11.2008. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of respondent I'los'2 to 4 and 5 6 are filed. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'2 6. to 4 submits that the petitioner cannot maintain the present Writ Petition for the relief being sought for, inasmuch as he cannot be considered as an aggrieved party by the action of the respondents-a uthorities ' Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner can 7. maintain the present writ Petition, if only he is personall'7 aggrieved by the actions of the respondents-authorities, and inasmuch the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents-a uthorities to implement the acquisition ordg;s, whereby the authorities are required to demolish the I property of the unofficial respondent, the petitioner cannot be considered as an aggrieved party for approaching this Court in the present form' since, the present Writ Petition as filed is not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and taking note of the factthatthereliefsoughtforbythepetitioneritselfindicatesthatheis not aggrieved by the action or inaction on the part of the respondents' but on the other hand, he is seeking action to be taken by the respondents- authorities .against the property of the unofficial respondent' which is stated to have been acquired by the authorities for the purpose of road widening and also having paid compensation for the same' this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved pary affecting his right, for approaching this Court by invoking the jurisdiction ofthisCourtunderArticle226oftheconstitutionoflndia.Itisalsotobe noted that the present Writ Petition is not filed as in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, where he has no personal interest' In view of the above, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit

9. and it is accordingly dismissed' No order as to costs'

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/.V. KAVI HA ASSTSTANT REGIS To, /ITRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER '1 . rwo ccs to GP-FoR, M u N I c I PAL ADMr N I ?Iltrn:?TllP-"534|,d tourl , *Y::t:y=;;t;3fltii,ilig.lt:':H3;' i,il'; a;* tti,ie biate ot' . l*: ta t' 3'#I3:'f $[""'JLo* r, oo'o O4. "'te ro P U c] On" CC tO SRI. MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC IOPUCI Two CD CoPies tF r. K ) HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER WP.No.45628 of 2022 HE STAT 1 G 6e q c o ,q 11 FtB ztlft u o .t^x: prtcH(:o t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0