Telangana High Court

Ganta Ram Reddy, vs The Project Director Special ... on 27 October, 2021

Bench: K.Lakshman

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

     WRIT PETITION Nos. 41899 OF 2016 AND 34895 OF 2017

COMMON ORDER:

          W.P. No. 41899 of 2016 is filed seeking a direction against the

respondents to consider their representation dated 29.09.2016 seeking

allotment of alternative suitable land available in Sy. No. 244/88 instead

of Sy. No.244/67 (P) of Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayatnagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. Whereas, W.P. No. 34895 of 2017 is filed seeking

cancellation of land allotment deed Nos.2655/2017 dated 18.07.2017,

2656/2017 and 3411/2017 dated 19.08.2017 covering land in Sy. No.

244/88 of Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, made on the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 by respondent Nos.

2 to 4.

2. Heard Mr. A. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration &

Urban Development, Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel HMDA

and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for unofficial

respondents.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:

i) The petitioners claim to be small farmers who owned and

cultivated the land admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas each. The small extents

of land owned by them were covered by Sy. Nos.205, 222, 226 and 351

situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District.

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

ii) The land of the petitioners was acquired under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State Government for the construction of

Outer Ring Road (ORR). On 20.07.2011, a draw of lots was conducted to

allot lands as compensation for the acquired lands. The petitioners

participated in the draw of lots and were allotted the lands covered by

serial No.13, admeasuring Acs.1-26 guntas in Sy. No.244/67 (P), Pedda

Amberpet Village.

iii) According to the petitioners, the land that was allotted to them

was not fit for any purpose. They protested and declined to accept the

said land and made a demand to allot alternative land. In this regard,

several representations were made viz. 29.08.2011, 05.09.2011,

06.08.2012, 01.04.2014, 21.07.2015, 17.09.2016 and 29.09.2016.

According to them, in the said representations, a request was also made to

allot alternative land in Sy. No.244/88.

iv) While the matters stood thus, W. P. Nos.23231, 23233 and

23237 of 2012 were filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein (W.P. 34895 of

2017 filed seeking allotment of alternative land). The contention of

respondent Nos.5 to 7 in the said writ petition was that the land allotted to

them was undeveloped and neither useful for agricultural purpose nor for

construction purpose. This Court granted interim order directing the

authorities to consider the representation dated 30.03.2012 submitted by

the petitioners therein.

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

v) W.P. No.41889 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners seeking a

direction to consider the representation submitted by them on 29.09.2016

to allot the land in Sy. No.244/88.

vi) While W.P. No.41889 of 2016 was pending, the land in Sy. No.

244/88 in Pedda Amberpet Village was allotted in favour of respondent

Nos. 5 to 7 vide land allotment deed Nos.2655/2017 dated 18.07.2017,

2656/2017 and 3411/2017 dated 19.08.2017.

vii) Thereafter, W.P. No.34895 of 2017 was filed by the petitioners

seeking cancellation of deed Nos.2655/2017 dated 18.07.2017, 2656/2017

and 3411/2017 dated 19.08.2017.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE EPTITIONERS:

i) The petitioners' ancestral and family profession is agriculture

which is also their source of livelihood.

ii) The land admeasuring Acs.1-26½ Guntas in Serial No.13

covered under Sy. No.244 allotted to them on 20.11.2020 is not fit for

anything. The petitioners refused to accept the said land.

iii) The allotted sub-division No.244/13 has only 55 feet facing the

road and around 1100 feet depth from the road. The allotted land is

undeveloped and to bring it to any useful purpose lakhs of rupees are to be

spent and cannot be afforded by the petitioners.

iv) The officials orally promised to look into the grievance and

promised allotment of alternate suitable lands in Sy. No.244. Multiple

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

representations were submitted viz. 29.08.2011, 05.09.2011, 06.08.2012,

01.04.2014, 21.07.2015 and 17.09.2016 to allot alternative land in Sy.

No.244/88, which was not allotted to anyone.

v) The extent of land in Sy. No.244/88 is less than the allotted

land, but the petitioners were ready to accept the short fall of land and the

same is evident from representation dated 17.09.2016.

vi) The respondent authorities have failed to consider the

representations and allot suitable land.

vii) The land allotment deeds Nos.2655/2017 dated 18.07.2017,

2656/2017 and 3411/2017 dated 19.08.2017 are bad, illegal and are to be

cancelled.

viii) The allotment of Sy. No.244/88 is sought by the petitioners

for agricultural purposes and the representation for allotment of the said

land was made earlier than the representation of respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

Allotment of land to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in preference to the

petitioners is illegal.

ix) No reasons were given in allotting the said land in favour of

respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The request of the petitioners is not rejected till

date and the same is pending. No rejection orders were received by the

petitioners.

x) Therefore, the impugned land allotment deeds are to be

cancelled and the land in Sy. No.244/88 is to be allotted in the petitioners

favour.

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF HMDA:

i) The land losers including the petitioners were allotted land under

the scheme of Resettlement & Rehabilitation on 20.07.2011 by a draw.

The petitioners were drawn plot No.13 admeasuring Ac.1-26 ½ guntas.

ii) The petitioners requested for re-allotment of land in sub-

division Nos.244/88 or 244/68 which were not allotted to anyone.

iii) W.P. Nos.23231, 23233 and 23237 of 2012 were filed by

respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein for allotment in Sy. No.244/88. An interim

order was passed directing the authorities to consider the representation of

respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

iv) Respondent Authority considered both the representations made

by the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 to 7. The request of the

petitioner was found not feasible as Sy.No.244/88 admeasured only

Acs.1-21 Guntas, but the petitioners were entitled to Acs.1-26 ½ Guntas.

Therefore, the matter was placed before the Project Level Empowered

Committee (PLEC).

v) On 14.07.2016, the PLEC examined the issues in light of the

object and spirit of G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 18.12.2006. The PLEC agreed

to allot the land in Sy. No.244/88 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 by

cancelling their earlier allotment.

vi) While the PLEC was considering all the representations made

by the petitioners and feasibility of allotment to take a final decision

subject to technical issues in respect of cancellation of earlier allotment

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

and the market value of the excess land, the petitioners and respondent

Nos.5 to 7 have pre-maturely approached this Court with false allegations.

Therefore, the PLEC is reviewing its earlier decision to allot land in

favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

vii) The writ petition is not maintainable as the land in Sy.

No.244/68 admeasures Ac.1-05 Guntas and Sy. No.244/88 admeasures

Acs.1-21 Guntas which falls short of the earlier allotted Acs.1-26½

Guntas.

viii) There are no vacant plots available in Sy. No.244. Therefore,

the writ petition is to be dismissed.

6. CONTENTIONS OF UNOFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:

i) Land in Sy. No.244/88 was allotted in favour respondent Nos.5

to 7 vide proceedings ORRP/R&R/441/2015 dated 17.06.2017 asking to

pay Rs.3,57,500/- towards excess land of Ac. 0-6 ½ Guntas. The same

was paid on 20.06.2017 and land was registered in their names through

allotment deed Nos.2655/2017 dated 18.07.2017, 2656/2017 and

3411/2017 dated 19.08.2017.

ii) The allotment was done following the norms and procedure and

as per the interim directions of this Court in W.P. Nos.23233 of 2012,

23231 of 2012 and 23237 of 2012, dated 31.0.2012. The petitioners are

not allowed to challenge the legal process, procedure and registered deeds

already completed.

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

iii) The Government allotted the lands as per the draw system and

feasibility and not to suit the convincible and profitability of the land

owners/beneficiaries.

iv) The petitioners never demanded the land in Sy.No.244/88 in

their representations dated 29.08.2011, 05.09.2011 and 06.08.2012. It

was only after PLEC allotted land in Sy. No.244/88 to the respondent

Nos. 5 to 7 that the petitioners started requesting for allotment of land in

Sy. No.244/88.

v) The land is already allotted to respondent Nos.5 to 7 and the

decision which is final cannot be altered nor disturbed as per the rules.

The petitioners have no locus, vested right and title to claim land in Sy.

No.244/88 and alternative land can only be allotted as per the norms,

procedure and applicable rules.

vi) The writ petition is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The petitioners are land losers. Their lands were acquired for the

purpose of laying Outer Ring Road. Therefore, the land in Sy.No.244/67

(P) was allotted to them by way of drawl of lots. They are dissatisfied

with the allotment of the said land. This land according to them is not

suitable for any purpose and they seek allotment of land in Sy. No.244/88.

In this regard, multiple representations were submitted. However, the

land in Sy. No.244/88 has already been allotted and registered in the

names of respondent Nos.5 to 7. The registered allotment deeds are

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

challenged in the present case. The petitioners' contention is that they

made a representation earlier than respondent Nos.5 to 7 and their

representations should have been considered in preference to respondent

Nos.5 to 7.

ii) The issue before the Court is whether the allotment of Sy. No.

244/88 in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is illegal and whether the

registered allotment deeds can be cancelled by this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

iii) It is relevant to note that land acquisition and allotment of land

to the affected people is done in furtherance of government policy. In the

present case, the land in Sy. No.244 was allotted vide G.O. Ms. No.14,

dated 18.12.2006 to the people whose lands were acquired during the

construction of the outer ring road. G.O.Ms. No.14 was brought in

addition to the compensation paid to the affected land owners. The said

G.O. which reflects the government policy did not contemplate allotment

of alternative plots. It is a policy decision.

iv) In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh1,

the Supreme Court held that allotment of alternative land is to be decided

by the Government based as per availability and feasibility. The relevant

portion is extracted below:

"26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing

. (2011) 7 SCC 639

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

to purchase and comply with any requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price at which the land has been acquired from them. However, the State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land considering the facts and circumstances of each case."

v) In the present case, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right,

claim that specific alternative land in Sy. No.244/88 is to be allotted to

them in preference of respondent Nos.5 to 7. The petitioners have no

vested right in claiming right over the land in Sy. No.244/88. Further, the

petitioners failed to point out any law or policy that provides for allotment

of alternative plots, much less specific alternative plot. No law has been

referred to or relied upon by the petitioners to support their claim of

preference on Sy. No.244/88 over respondent Nos.5 to 7.

vi) It is relevant to note that the land in Sy.No.244/67 (P) was

allotted to the petitioners through drawl of lots. There is no challenge to

the same by the petitioners. Having accepted and participated in drawl of

lots, the petitioners cannot seek for alternative land, more so in the

absence of any rule or policy.

vii) There may be questions regarding the suitability of the earlier

allotted land in Sy. No.244/67 (P) but alternative land cannot be allotted

as a matter of right. If the land allotted is not suitable the aggrieved allotee

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

may make a representation to the concerned authorities for allotment of

alternative land, but such alternative allotment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right, unless provided by ay law or policy.

viii) Therefore, in the absence of any right to claim allotment of a

specific alternative land i.e., Sy. No.244/88, the petitioners neither claim

any preference nor compel the authorities to allot them land only in Sy.

No.244/88.

ix) The issue of cancellation of registered conveyance deeds was

considered by this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula

Sayamma2 and P. Veda Kumar v. The Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad3. This Court on consideration of facts and after discussing

the relevant case laws refused to cancel the registered sale deeds therein.

It was held that discretion under Article 226 must be exercised only in

exceptional cases when alternative remedies are available. For

cancellation of registered documents, the appropriate forum is the civil

Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It further held

that where factual questions are involved the Court should refuse to grant

relief under Article 226.

x) The issue of cancellation of registered documents under Article

226 was also considered by the Madras High Court in S.C. Pandian v.

The Inspector General of Registration Santhome4. It was held:

. 2006 SCC OnLine AP 909

. W.P. Nos.4174/2008 & batch, dated

. W.P.(MD) Nos.1202 and 1203 of 2017, dated

KL,J W.P.Nos 41899 of 2016 & 34895 of 2017

"18. On perusal of the entire facts that culminated into the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the second respondent, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable for the reason that the prayer sought in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 16.12.2016 and to cancel all the sale deeds admitted pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2016 falls beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner counsel has relied upon more than 10 judgments, wherein which, none of the judgments relied on by the petitioner supports his case as those were the cases discussing the powers of the Registrar under Registration Act and contrary to the facts in the present case.

20. In the order passed by this Court in 2016 (1) CTC 673 (Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ltd., Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others), with regard to Maintainability of a Writ Petition for setting aside registration of sale deed, it is stated that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory right or legal right or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities, only then, the Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body to provide for a right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking writ jurisdiction and the legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be a right of the appellant itself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same."