HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16327 of 2006
and
WRIT PETITION No.17648 of 2006
Date: April 28, 2014
WRIT PETITION No.16327 of 2006
Between:
1. P. Pramila J. Reddy & 4 others.
… Petitioners And 1. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad & 3 others.
… Respondents * * *
WRIT PETITION No.17648 of 2006
Between:
Nukala Bharathi Devi … Petitioner And 1. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16327 of 2006
and
WRIT PETITION No.17648 of 2006
COMMON ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions was absent on 22.04.2014 and today also when the case is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned standing counsel for the respondents is present.
2. These writ petitions were filed challenging the action of the respondents in proposing to take the petitioners’ land admeasuring 119.58 square yards in premises bearing Municipal No.7-1-22/15 and 118.99 square yards in premises bearing Municipal No.7-1-22/9 for the purpose of widening the service road for flyover from Greenlands Junction to Begumpet flyover in pursuance of notice No.A/135/2006 dated 19.05.2006 of the 4th respondent and proceedings dated 07.07.2006 of the 3rd respondent.
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.16327 of 2006 stated that they have received notices in proceedings dated 19.05.2006 under Section 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, MCH, Hyderabad, wherein it was mentioned that the State Government proposed to acquire the land mentioned in the list for public purpose. The petitioners were asked to appear before the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation o f Hyderabad, Hyderabad, on 16.06.2006 to file their claims and objections. In the said notice, the name of the deceased original owner was mentioned at serial No.3 and the extent of land was shown as 510.46 square yards. In pursuance of the said notice, they engaged a counsel and submitted their objections on 16.06.2006 before the 4th respondent. In the said objections the ground of discrimination was raised. Their case is that though the original notice states that the land which was shown as affected is 510.46 square yards, but in the Record of Measurements noted before the 4th respondent it was shown as 206 square yards. However, in the letter dated 07.07.2006 it was shown as 118.58 square yards.
4. Similarly, the case in the other writ petition in W.P.No.17648 of 2006 is that in the original notice the land affected was shown as 157.76 square yards, but in the measurements noted before the 4th respondent it was shown as 161.77 square yards. However, in the letter dated 07.07.2006 it was shown as 118.99 square yards.
5. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent stating that the Municipal Corporation proposed to widen the road from Greenlands Junction to Leelanagar to a width of 150 feet as per the road development plan. Since there was urgency for construction of flyover, which was under progress, the MCH placed requisition for acquisition of the properties affected under road widening from Green Lands to Leelanagar. The properties affected are 7-1- 22/8, 7-1-22/9 and 7-1-22/15. The total extent of the three properties is 510.46 square yards. The extent of land affected by the owner of property bearing No.7-1-22/15 is 139.96 square yards, whereas, the property bearing No.7- 1-22/9 is affected to an extent of 157.76 square yards. Accordingly, the same extent was adopted for the purpose of acquisition and award would be passed duly following the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act. The counter also states that the total extent of affected properties was 510.46 square yards and there is no proposal to acquire more land from the premises of the petitioners.
6. From the counter-affidavit of the respondents it is clear that the land actually required for the purpose of acquisition was only noted and appropriate proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act. The properties were got surveyed and demarcated and sub- divisional records were accordingly prepared with reference to the Town Survey Land Record and sub- division record was sent to the Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records for attestation. The Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records attested the extent adopted for acquisition. In view of this, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the proceedings taken for acquisition of the land. The petitioners are protected under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and in respect of compensation they are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings if they are aggrieved otherwise.
7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 28, 2014 BSB
03 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16327 of 2006
and
WRIT PETITION No.17648 of 2006
Date: April 28, 2014
BSB