Afzulunnisa Begum 2 Ors. vs Prl. Secy., Rev. 2 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 7745 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                          W.P.1115 of 2017
O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"To issue any writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of 2nd and 3rd Respondents from releasing the property in T.S.No.194/3 (Old R.S.N.234), Patha Srirakulam Ward, Collector Bungalow Road, Near Z.P.Srikakulam now in Srikakulam Municipal Corporation limits in view of the orders of this Honble Court in W.P.No.13730/1986 dated 01.09.1988 quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings covered by Award No.12/86 dated 22.09.1986 including Sec. 4(1) Notification issued by 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.2730/83 B3 dated 25.02.1983 as illegal, unjustifiable, lack of bona fides, arbitrary, colourable and violative of principles of natural justice."

2. This Court has heard Sri K.S.Gopal Krishnan, learned

senior counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader for

Land Acquisition, Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, standing counsel for

respondent No.3Housing Board and Sri V.Ragunath Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners rests his arguments

on the proposition of law that the section 4(1) notification

issued on 19.08.1983 under the Land Acquisition Act has

been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in WP.No.13730 of 1986.

4. It is his contention that the petitioners are the

successors in interest of Mohd. Zakriya Khan. Mohd.

Zakriya Khan was issued the pattadar pass book in 1996. He

died in 2009 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs.

Since then, the petitioners were trying to secure the release of

the property from land acquisition because in W.P.No.13730

of 1986, the high Court has set aside the entire land

acquisition proceedings. He draws the attention of the Court

to the order passed by the high Court and points out that

once the 4(1) notification was quashed, the entire land

acquisition proceedings would fall to the ground. In all

fairness, he submits that some misconceived writ petitions

were filed by the writ petitioners earlier but the fact remains

that the land was not actually, physically acquired by the

respondents. Relying upon the recent judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & another v.

State of Himachal Pradesh and others1, the learned senior

counsel argues that when a person is deprived of his right to

1 2022 Livelaw (SC) 347

property under Article 300-A, the Court should take a liberal

attitude beyond the question of delay since a person is

deprived of his value rights in private property. He points out

that when there is arbitrary State action, this Court must and

should interfere. He also points out earlier cases which are

referred to in this decision to show that if the cause for justice

is so compelling, the Court should interfere and grant

appropriate relief. He points out that in the case cited by

him, the State was directed to treat the subject lands as the

acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation. In the

case on hand, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to

redelivery. He contends that there is no serious dispute

about their title to the property. Learned senior counsel relies

upon the judgment in Abhey Ram (dead) by Lrs. And others

v. Union of India and others2 to argue that once the

notification is quashed for certain survey numbers it applies

to all survey numbers and the other parties who are not

before the writ Court in W.P.No.13730 of 1986.

5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader submits

that in W.P.No.13730 of 1986, the issue related to

(1997) 5 SCC 421

T.S.Nos.189/1, 189/3 and 190/1 corresponding to

R.S.No.246/1, 246/2 and 247/1 only. It is his contention

that the present petitioners are claiming rights in property in

T.S.No.194/3 old R.S.No.234 and that therefore order in the

writ petition will not enure to their benefit. He points out that

the claim of the petitioners is extremely stale and the writ

petition itself states that the award was passed on

22.09.1986. It is his contention that in view of the settled

law, the writ filed in 2017 is patently barred by time.

6. Learned Government Pleader also points out that the

land in question has been handed over to the Housing Board,

which has constructed a colony in the said land. He states

that physical possession was taken and handed over to the

A.P. Housing Board and its beneficiaries are very much

settled in the said housing colony.

7. In continuation, Sri Srinivasan for the APHB argues the

matter at length. He also submits that the land was acquired

three decades prior to the filing of the counter. Possession

was given on 21.05.1987. He relies upon the delivery receipt

annexed to the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. He also

submits that the claim is hopelessly barred by time. He

draws the attention of the Court to the tabular statement in

the counter and submits that land in Sy.No.194/3 is also

covered by the Award No.12/86. Thereafter, layout plan 8/93

was obtained from the DTCP and houses were also

constructed. He therefore submits that the beneficiaries are

in settled possession. They are not added as parties to the

proceedings also. Therefore, stresses upon the delay and

argues once the award is passed, the property vests in the

State and the petitioners cannot claim redelivery. He relies

upon various paras in his counter affidavit and argues the

matter at length.

8. This Court after considering the submissions notices

that there is no dispute about the fact that an award was in

fact passed. The writ petition itself clearly states in para 4

that the lands belonging to the Mohd. Zakriya Khan were

acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under award

No.12/86 but he states that only symbolic paper possession

was given.

9. On the other hand, counters filed by the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 clearly show that the physical delivery of the

property was affected on 21.05.1987 and the delivery receipt

is also filed as exhibit. A copy of the award in 12/86 is clearly

filed and the lands in Sy.No.194/3 were acquired by paying

compensation of Rs.3,24,462/-. The owner applied through

his counsel and also sought for deletion of the lands from the

acquisition, but the Land Acquisition Officer clearly held that

improvements were made after the publication of the 4(1)

notification and therefore, the withdrawal of the land from the

acquisition does not arise. The contention of the owner that

he has sold away land in Sy.No.194/3 by various sale deeds

was also noted. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer

realized that there is a dispute to the property including title

dispute and also apportionment. Hence, the matter was

referred to a civil Court to determine the title. It was noted

clearly that the owner did not clearly state that what is the

extent sold and what is the extent remaining with him.

10. Apart from this, counter affidavit filed by the respondent

No.3 also supports the case of the respondent-State. No

documentary evidence is filed to contradict the contentions

urged. A rejoinder is also not filed to contradict the same. It

is apparent that the land has vested in the State as the

acquisition proceedings are completed.

11. This Court notices that the case of V.Chandrasekaran

and others v. the Administrative Officer and others 3 has

reiterated the legal position and held that once the land vests

in the State, it cannot divested and property cannot be given

back.

12. Lastly, the submission of the learned counsel that the

entire 4(1) proceedings were quashed does not also appear to

be very correct. In the said writ petition (W.P.No.13730 of

1986), the property in question was limited to T.S.No.189/1,

189/3, 190/1. The present claim is for property in

Sy.No.194/3. According to the writ affidavit itself, the award

was passed on 22.09.1986 (Award No.12/86). The order in

W.P.No.13730 of 1986 was passed on 01.09.1988, which is

almost two years after the award was passed. Therefore, on

facts also, this Court holds that the order in W.P.No.13730 of

1986 will not inure to the benefit of petitioners as it does not

relate to the survey number which the petitioners claim.

Even otherwise, the award was passed two years before the

order was passed in the writ petition mentioned above.

(2012) 12 SCC 133

13. Therefore, both on law and on fact, this Court holds that

the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

14. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 12.10.2022 KLP