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

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

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

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

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

(2003) 1 SCC 335

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