Telangana High Court
Palapanla Lalitha vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 4 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34935 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in non- considering the representation of the Petitioner and non-initiating to grant the compensation to the Petitioner land to an extent of Ac. 3-10 gts in Sy.No.81/2 which is situated at Borraipalem revenue Village shivar of Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was acquired under the land acquisition program to construct the Indiramma Houses and non- initiating to delete the land of the Petitioner from land acquisition program, as it is not utilized since to 2007 to till today and kept vacate possession, basing on the representation of the Petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and apart from the provisions of Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to grant compensation to me on my land, which is acquired under the land acquisition program in the year 2007, nor returned my land to me, as which is not allotted to any beneficiaries and kept vacate possession to an extent of Ac. 3-10 gts in Sy. No. 81/2 which is situated at Borraipalem revenue Village shivar of Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District..."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father-in-law is the owner and pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.3-10gts in Sy.No.81/2 situated at Boraipalem Revenue Village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is further case of the petitioner that the name of the pattedar was entered in the revenue records and pattedar Passbook No.13473 with Patta No.687 and title deeds were also issued and during his lifetime he was in enjoyment and possession of 2 the said land. It is further case of the petitioner that even after protest, the respondents acquired the said land for the purpose of weaker section houses (Indiramma Houses) and as the said land was not utilized for the purpose of its acquisition, the petitioner is entitled for re-conveyance of the same. Hence the writ petition.
3. The respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner's father-in-law is not the owner of the subject lands and in fact the said lands were purchased by the petitioner's husband by way of registered sale deed vide document No.821/2001 dated 08.03.2001 and the same was implemented in the revenue records and issued pattedar passbook No.134713 with patta No.687. It is further stated that during the lifetime of the petitioner's husband, the said land was sold to one Gouru Madhu for a sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- on Sadabainama and the name of the subsequent purchaser was recorded in the revenue records in the pahanies for the year 2006-07. While-so, the-then Government with an intention to provide house sites to needy poor people has enunciated policy, commonly called as "Indiramma Gruha Nirmana Pathakam" and land to an extent of Ac.3-02 gts including the subject lands of the petitioner was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after following the due procedure and in view of not receiving the objections in Form-CC, the compensation amount has been paid 3 to Gouru Madhu, whose name is recorded as an occupant in the revenue records. It is also stated that the acquired lands were recorded in the Dharani Portal from the year 2009-10 as House sites. It is also stated that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1148 Revenue Department dated 31.05.1960 issued by the respondent No.1, 68 beneficiaries were identified under the Housing Scheme and allotted plots and as the beneficiaries have not constructed the houses, the allotments made in favour of the beneficiaries have been cancelled and land was proposed for construction of 2 BHK houses. It is specific case of the respondents that once the land has been acquired by paying compensation, the land-losers will not have any right for re-conveyance of the same and land acquired can be utilized by the State for any purpose as it vests with the State free from all encumbrances and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
5. The land to an extent of Ac.3-02 gts forming part of Sy.No.81, situated at Borraipalem Revenue Village Shivar of Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District, was acquired for the purpose of construction of weaker section houses under the scheme commonly called as "Indiramma Gruha Nirmana Pathakam". The record reveals 4 that during the lifetime of petitioner's husband he sold the property in favour of one Gouru Madhu under Sadabainama and name of the said person was entered in the revenue records/pahanies for the year 2006-07. When the respondents issued notification, the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to title and entitlement of Gouru Madhu to receive compensation. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda vide Proceedings No.E2/3133/2007 dated 25.07.2008 and in the revenue records, the nature of the land was classified as House Sites. Consequent to acquisition, the land was allotted to the beneficiaries under the Scheme vide proceedings No.A/6852/2007 dated -Nil-08.2010. As the beneficiaries have not constructed houses under the said Scheme, the Government reserved the land for the purpose of construction of Double Bedroom houses vide proceedings in Lr.No.A/6852/2007-1 dated 18.03.2017. Since almost more than a decade, the lands are in the possession of the beneficiaries and thereafter, with the Government. At no point of time, the petitioner has raised any objection with regard to acquisition or re-conveyance of the land for not utilizing the same for the purpose for which it was acquired. As it is settled law in a catena of judgments that the land acquired would vest with the State free 5 from all encumbrances, the State can utilize the same for any public purpose.
6. In Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Others 1., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the event, the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that do not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. Paras 10 and 11 of the said decision, reads as follows:
"10. In Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [(1996) 6 SCC 405] it is stated that the acquired land remaining unutilized was not intended to be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as on the date of notification.
11. Yet again in C.Padma Vs. Dy. Secy. To the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627], it is held that acquired land having vested in the State and the compensation having been paid to the claimant, he was not entitled to restitution of possession on the ground that either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for other purpose."
7. Thus it is clear from the above judgment that the land acquired, vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and the acquired land which is 1 (2003) 1 SCC 335 6 vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re- assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has not made out any case for granting relief as sought for. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 04.09.2024 scs