HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20610 of 2009 Date: 22.01.2014 Between:
Smt. Geetha Devi & another … Petitioners And The Commissioner & Special Officer GHMC, Hyderabad & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20610 of 2009 O R D E R:
The first petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.8-2-187/188, admeasuring 95 sq. yards situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds dated 01.09.1984 and 06.10.1986. The 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.8-2-237/A, admeasuring 147 sq. yards, situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 13.09.1968. The respondents acquired part of the buildings belonging to the petitioners during the year 2006-07 for the purpose of widening the road from Panjagutta to Mytrivanam junction. The 3rd respondent issued a notice stating that the land of the first petitioner to an extent of 57 sq. yards and the land of the 2nd petitioner to an extent of 38.5 sq. yards is going to be affected for the purpose of road widening and the petitioners could be paid compensation for the structures and they can also avail the concessions as prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.483 MA dated 24.08.1998 for re- development of balance area. Subsequent to the said notice, portion of the buildings of the petitioners were demolished. At the time of demolition, the petitioners stated that they are not interested in availing concessions under G.O.Ms.No.483 dated 24.08.98, but they require compensation for the structures as well as for the land. The 3rd respondent paid compensation to the structures, but did not pay any compensation for the land. The petitioners submitted representation dated 19.01.2009 to respondents 1 and 2 for payment of compensation for the land and it was followed by a notice dated 26.06.2009. The 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 17.08.2009 requesting the 3rd respondent to examine the case of the petitioners, but no compensation was paid. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the property of the petitioners was affected to an extent of 57 sq. yards, but she handed over only an extent of 34.5 sq. yards and did not handover the remaining 22.5 sq. yards. Similarly, the property of the 2nd petitioner was affected to an extent of 38.5 sq. yards, but only an extent of 17.11 sq. yards was handed over, leaving the remaining extent of 28.39 sq. yards. It was also stated that where the 3rd respondent was unable to acquire the road widening affected properties from the owners under negotiations such cases will be referred to the 2nd respondent, who would initiate process under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners were informed about the road widening and they voluntarily demolished the affected portion of the buildings and renovated the remaining portion of the buildings. The negotiations between the petitioners and the respondents were for giving structural compensation for the affected structures and to issue TDR certificate and the benefits under GO Ms.No.483, MA dated 24.08.1998 for the re-development of the balance area. But they have taken structural compensation for total affected portion of buildings. Hence, the issue of TDR certificate was kept pending. The respondents never agreed for payment of compensation for the land.
3. The petitioners filed reply affidavit stating that they have already surrendered the affected portion of the buildings for road widening and if at all the 3rd respondent finds that any area is yet to be handed over by the petitioners, they are ready to surrender the same after taking appropriate measurements. The petitioners have given advance possession of the affected portion of the buildings and demolished the buildings on the assumption that the 3rd respondent would pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In fact, the respondent officials have not informed the petitioners about the total compensation that was payable to them.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 and the Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though some amount was paid towards compensation for structures, no compensation was paid for the land affected and if it is the case of the 3rd respondent that still some extent of land has to be surrendered, the petitioners are willing to surrender that portion of the buildings also after taking measurements. However, the petitioners never agreed for foregoing compensation for the land affected and to avail the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.483, MA, dated 24.08.1998. The petitioners seek compensation for the land on par with others. He also relied upon Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the GHMC Act’), which provides for payment of compensation by agreement and in case of failure of agreement by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. As per the averments in the writ petition and counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is clear that the land of the first petitioner was affected to an extent of 57 sq. yards and that of the 2nd petitioner to an extent of 38.5 sq. yards and they have demolished that portion of the buildings also and renovated the balance portion of the buildings. As per the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the matter of issuing TDR certificate was kept pending. In spite of directing the 3rd respondent to produce record, the record has not been produced till today.
7. In view of the undisputed fact as to the extent of the land and buildings that was affected in respect of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of compensation under Section 147 of the GHMC Act, to the extent of the land and building affected for the purpose of road widening and the respondents are given opportunity to take the balance extent of land, if they have not taken possession already. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 22.01.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 0 WRIT PETITION No.20610 of 2009 Date: 22.01.2014 BSS