The Hyderabad Metropolitan ... vs K. Vittal Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 1727 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                      WRIT APPEAL No.225 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

08.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2582

of 2019.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner came up before the learned

Single Judge stating on affidavit that the appellants herein i.e.,

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) have

taken possession of his land and no compensation has been

paid to him. While the matter was heard by the learned Single

Judge, a categorical statement was made by the HMDA that

they have taken possession of only 934 square yards of land

belonging to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and the claim

of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was for more land.

However, in view of the statement made by the HMDA before the

learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner

confined his claim only to 934 square yards and in those

circumstances, the learned Single Judge, in paragraphs 15 and

16, has held as under:-

"15. Though there is a dispute with regard to the extent of land which the petitioner claims as having been dispossessed, while the respondents admit to an extent of 934 square yards only, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes that his client would agree, if the land acquisition proceedings are initiated in respect of 934 square yards as mentioned in Memo dated 01.04.2014 and compensation is paid expeditiously.

16. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Act 30 of 2013 and determine the compensation payable in respect of 934 square yards of land of the petitioner covered by Sy.Nos.43 and 54 in accordance with law and make payment thereof to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been dispossessed from the land by the respondents without following due process of law, the respondents shall endeavour to complete the entire process of passing an Award for acquiring the said land of the petitioner to the extent of 934 square yards and make payment as determined, within a period of three (3) months from today."

The learned Single Judge has simply directed to initiate

land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and

to pay compensation within a period of three months. The order

is confined to 934 square yards. Now, the HMDA is trying to

take a somersault before this Court.

In the considered opinion of this Court, as the order was

passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the consent

given by the HMDA, no case for interference is made out in the

matter.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

04.04.2022 JSU