HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4341 of 2013 Date :28-10-2014 Between :
Sri Omprakash Dhoot S/o Sri Kishan Dhoot R/o 20-3-698, Shah Gunj, Near Charminar, Hyderabad – 2 and The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, MCH, Hyderabad and another … Petitioner … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4341 of 2013 ORDER:
Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 12.6.2003 for the purpose of widening of the road at Lad Bazar, Charminar including the property of the petitioner shop bearing Nos. 21-2-376 and 21-2-377 to an extent of 29.90 sq yards. Urgency clause was invoked and Section 6 declaration was issued on 13.6.2003 and award was passed on 15.12.2003. Section 12 (2) notice was issued by the first respondent on 24.12.2003. On 27.12.2003 claim petition was filed by the petitioner seeking reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. However, in the award itself, the matter was referred to Civil Court on the ground that petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of the claim of ownership on the property. Possession was taken by the respondents and road was laid, petitioner was displaced from the property without payment of compensation. Petitioner alleges that he has not received any notice from the Civil Court regarding reference made and having waited for considerable time, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.
2. This writ petition is instituted praying to refer the claim application filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) and also for a declaration against action of the respondent in referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, since there is no title dispute or a rival claim.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it was illegal on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act, as there was no rival claim and there is no dispute to the claim of the petitioner as owner of the property acquired. Petitioner has participated in the land acquisition proceedings except on the last date of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that it was illegal on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in not referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.
4. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his claim of ownership to receive the compensation, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Amount of compensation payable to the petitioner along with others were credited to the Court of Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 25.4.2004. He further submits that papers filed in Reference Case under Section 30 of the Act, were returned on 16.7.2004 by the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for want of certain clarifications. However, consolidated cheque towards compensation of the properties was not returned. Section 30 application was not resubmitted to t h e Hon’ble Court after complying with the objections. No reason is forthcoming. It is thus clear that no application for reference to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act is pending before any Court and no compensation is paid to the petitioner. Similarly there is no explanation as to why the application submitted by the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act was not accepted.
5. Petitioner has submitted an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act on 6.8.2003 and as held by Supreme Court in SHARDA DEVI Vs STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, once an application is filed, there is no discretion vested in the competent authority and reference has to be made. In the instant case, on the specious ground that the petitioner has not established the title to the property a reference is made to Civil Court and even the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation was not acted upon, which is illegal.
6. The contents of the written instructions furnished by the Special Deputy Collector would show callousness in the matter of payment of compensation to the petitioner. No satisfactory explanation is given as to why immediate steps were not taken to comply with the objections raised by the competent Civil Court and to resubmit the papers as directed by the Court and there after also the matter is not pursued with due diligence as required by the competent authority. The persons whose property was acquired and displaced, all along were made to suffer without any justification in law.
7. As submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner, there is no rival claim and there is no dispute on the property, as such there was no need for reference to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. In accordance with provisions contained in Land Acquisition Act, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the material placed before him by the person who claims to be owner and who is displaced and if there is no serious dispute on the title and if there are no rival claims, the matter can be considered at his level only and decision can be taken. Only where there are serious disputes regarding title and there are rival claims, the matter ought to be referred to Civil Court.
8. In this case there is no progress in the matter since the year 2004. No case is pending on Section 30 reference. It would be travesty of justice if petitioner is asked to undergo the litigation process at this stage, more so, when there appears to be no dispute on title and there are no rival claims. Thus the petitioner is permitted to place the relevant material in support of his claim as to ownership of the property and as and when such material is placed before the Land Acquisition Officer, he shall consider the same, afford reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of relevant material by petitioner.
9. If the Land Acquisition Officer is satisfied that the petitioner is owner of the property and there are no rival claims, he shall disburse the compensation payable to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks.
10. With reference to application for reference to Civil Court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer shall take further steps to refer the matter to Civil Court within a period of two week from the date of completion of enquiry and taking decision regarding the claim of the petitioner on ownership and entitlement of compensation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sequel to the same, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:28.10.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4341 of 2013 Date :28-10-2014