IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36752 of 2014 Between:
B. Raj Kumar, S/o. Late B. Suryanarayana, Aged about 45 years, R/o. H.No.10-6-40, Shiv Shankar Nagar, Fathe Nagar, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioner AND State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36752 of 2014 ORDER:
Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) were initiated for the purpose of acquiring private properties for formation of Outer Ring Road around city of Hyderabad. As part of the said acquisition, lands in Survey Nos.564, 565 and 566 to an extent of Ac. 12.05 guntas, situated at Ghatkesar Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, were also affected. Layouts were already formed and the land was divided into house plots. Thus, when acquisition proceedings were taken up, the compensation was determined to the respective extents of house plots which were affected. Insofar as the petitioner in this writ petition is concerned, his father Sri Late B. Suryanarayana claimed to have purchased Plot No.12 in the year 1984. The father of the petitioner died on 13.12.1998. However, the records were manipulated, a separate Deed of Conveyance was generated by respondents 4 and 5 as if they purchased the same plot and showing the same as evidence, they participated in the land acquisition proceedings, consented for passing of an award as per the compensation determined, received the compensation though they were not entitled.
2. Having come to know that illegal documents were produced by respondents 4 and 5, notice was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer on 14.10.2014 and alleging that in spite of giving notice, no action was taken to recover the money already paid to respondents 4 and 5, this writ petition is instituted.
3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner did not participate in the land acquisition proceedings. Respondents 4 and 5 claimed as owners, produced the relevant documents in support of their claim in the land acquisition proceedings and received the compensation as early as in the year 2008. Award was passed on 22.01.2009, possession was taken and Outer Ring Road was formed. Insofar as this stretch is concerned, road is already formed and it is in operation. It appears from the reading of the writ affidavit and the notice issued on 14.10.2014, the petitioner kept silent all along without raising any objection.
4. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the grievance is concerning passing of an award by the Land Acquisition Officer and payment of compensation to respondents 4 and 5. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no complaint made to the Land Acquisition Officer on the claim made by respondents 4 and 5 regarding the ownership on Plot No.12. The Land Acquisition Officer had no other material before him to doubt the claim made by respondents 4 and 5 for him to deny the payment of compensation and to refer the dispute to civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. On verification of the documents produced by them and since there was no rival claim, the compensation was paid. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Officer’s decision to declare respondents 4 and 5 as owners and to pay compensation as erroneous warranting interference by this Court.
5. It is also appropriate to notice that compensation was paid in the year 2008 as agreed by the claimants and award was passed in January, 2009. Possession was taken long ago, road was formed and in the stretch, road is also in operation. After more than five years, the petitioner wakes up to claim that it was his plot and was taken over by the State without paying compensation.
6. Therefore, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Officer erred in identifying respondents 4 and 5 as the persons entitled to receive compensation and in paying compensation to them. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition.
7. However, if the petitioner has a valid claim on the property and according to the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 claimed ownership and received compensation on production of false documents, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available under law.
8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 2nd December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36752 of 2014 Date: 2nd December, 2014 KL