Smt. D. Indra Bai, v. The State Of Telangana

WP 39880 of 2018 Between:

Smt K Kumari W/ o Bhaskar Raju age 63 yrs Aadhar no 624675345763 R/ o 158 Panduva W G Dt A P .....Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep by its PrI Secretary Land Acquisition Department Secretariat Hyderabad & others .....Respondents The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition (TG).

2.

As the issue in all these writ petitions is common and the relief prayed is same, these writ petitions are disposed of by this order. 3.

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short GHMC) placed requisition to acquire 16 properties which are affected for road widening under 'Strategic Road Development Plan'(SRDP) for the purpose of multi level fly over at Bio-Diversity Park T Junction, Raidurg Pan Maktha village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The properties acquired are in Survey No.82 with sub divisions and Survey No. 83 with sub divisions. Petitioners' properties are included in the above requisition placed by GHMC. Preliminary notification under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Act) was published in the District Gazettee on 26.9.2017. After issuing notice under Section 15 (1), conducting personal hearing, declaration under section 19

(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazettee in February, 2018 and award was passed on 3.4.2018. During enquiry, objections were filed by third parties claiming that properties under acquisition actually belong to them, therefore compensation should be paid to them and not to the petitioners. In view of the objections, matters were referred to third respondent Authority and amount of compensation arrived by the LAOP was deposited under Section 77 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4.

In LAOPs petitioners filed their claim statements. Petitioners also raised demand for enhancement of compensation. Their claim for enhancement of compensation is also referred to the Authority. The authority issued notices to the rival claimants and matter is pending at that stage.

5.

The details of the petitioners are given hereunder in a tabulated form:

Enhancement of compensation I.A No SNo Petitioner name W.P No Property Rival Claimant LAOP No 1 S. Ramaraju Varma 39910/ 2018 232.92 sq yards in Sy No 83/ 2/ 9 Abdul Aziz 102/ 2018 113/ 2018 2 U. Dharma Reddy 39911/ 2018 230.73 sq yards in Sy. No 83/ 2/ 10 Abdul Aziz 105/ 2018 112/ 2018 3 K. Jamivardhani 39927/ 2018 247.01 sq yards in Sy No. 83/ 2/ 6 Abdul Aziz 108/ 2018 114/ 2018 4 D. Indra Bai 39932/ 2018 92.9 sq yards in Sy. No 83/ 2/ 11 Abdul Aziz 103/ 2018 108/ 2018 5 K. Ajay Babu 39946/ 2018 242.19 sq yards in Sy. No 83/ 2/ 5 Abdul Aziz 112/ 2018 110/ 2018 6 Vemula Venugopal 39947/ 2018 240.65 sq yards in Sy No 83/ 2/ 8 Abdul Aziz 100/ 2018 109/ 2018 7 Dulchand Shishupal Singh 40348/ 2018 92.9 sq yards in Sy No 83/ 2/ 11 Abdul Aziz 109/ 2018 108/ 2018 6.

In these writ petitions, petitioners claim that even though Section 60 (4) of the Act envisages disposal of the LAOP within six months, so far, LAOPs are not disposed of. Learned counsel sought to contend that after award was passed, possession was taken but so far compensation is not paid, thereby causing lot of hardship to petitioners. Due to delay in disposal of the LAOPs, the very objective of the Act is

defeated and there is no justification to the authority in not disposing of LAOPs within the time as required by the Act. 7.

To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to note the pleadings of the petitioners. In paragraph 7 of affidavit filed in support of WP No. 39880 of 2018, petitioner states that the rival claimants have not yet received the notices and cases were adjourned on several occasions for want of service of notice to the rival claimants. It is further averred that it is an admitted fact that the rival claimants sold away the land in question and migrated to USA, way back. In other words, so far notices are not served on the rival claimants. The pleadings in the affidavit are silent as to whether steps for service by alternative mode were taken. Averments are also silent as to what is the status of pendency before the authority and cases of which year are now being taken up. 8.

Without service of notice on rival claimants, LAOPs cannot be disposed of. It is not the case of petitioners that the rival claimants are deliberately avoiding to receive notices. Thus, it cannot be said that third respondent Authority is deliberately dragging on the cases, not adhering to the time frame fixed by the Act and for no valid reason or cause the cases are kept pending. Therefore, relief sought for by the petitioners can not be granted. However, it is open to petitioners to file appropriate application requesting the authority to ensure early service of notice on the rival claimants and expedite the hearing of the LAOPs. 9.

Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Tvk