IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7260 of 2007 Between: Mohd. Haji Pasha, S/o. Late Mohd. Khaja Miya, R/o. 23-1-1119/6, Panch Mohalla, Mogalpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tankbund, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank bund, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. D3/1234/2007 dated 6-3-2007 issued Under Sec.4 where under Sub Sec. 4 of Sec. 17 of the Act, the District Collector, Hyderabad District dispensed with the Sec. 5-A Enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act and also the Notiﬁcation No.C/242/2007 dated 9-3-2007k issued Under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 9-3-2007 which was served on the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, null and void in so far as the Petitioner's mulgies Nos 23-1-1115 to 1118 situated at Panch Mohalla, Mogalpura, Hyderabad and consequently direct the Respondents to enquire and to receive the objections from the Petitioner into the matter before acquiring the land admeasuring 35.89 sq.yards out of 97 sq.yards of four (4) Mulgies Nos 23-1- 1115 to 1118 of the Petitioner situated at Panch Mohalla, Mogalpura, Hyderabad, and also further direct the respondents to delete the factious names from the possessor column of the above notiﬁcations and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.JAMALI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7260 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the premises bearing Municipal Nos.23-1-1115 to 1118, situated at Panch Mohalla, Mogalpura, Hyderabad. According to him, the said premises comprises of four mulgies in all admeasuring 97 sq. yards. It is also stated that the said four mulgies are let out for commercial purpose and they are in occupation of tenants. While so, a notiﬁcation dated 6.3.2007 was published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) acquiring 35.89 sq. yards of the land out of 243.81 sq. yards of the petitioner’s premises for the purpose of road- widening from Charminar to Falaknuma. While invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice dated 9.3.2007 under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act calling upon to appear in person or by authorized agent on 26.3.2007 before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to ﬁle his claim of interest in the land acquired and also to submit his objections, if any, to the measurements made under Section 8 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the notiﬁcation dated 6.3.2007 as well as the consequential notice dated 9.3.2007 are arbitrary, illegal and void. It is pleaded by the petitioner that whereas the total extent of four mulgies of the petitioner bearing Municipal Nos.23.1.1115 to 1118 is 97 sq. yards, in the notiﬁcation dated 6.3.2007 it is erroneously shown as 243.81 sq. yards which itself shows that the impugned acquisition has been resorted to without carrying out any exercise as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is also contended that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act thereby depriving the petitioner to putforth his objections as regards the error in the extent of his property is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the Requisitioning Department placed requisition for acquiring eight (8) properties situated on the road from Charminar to Falaknuma including the petitioner’s premises bearing No. 23-1-1115 to 1118. On receipt of the requisition, the properties were got surveyed, demarcated and sub-division records were prepared. Accordingly, draft notiﬁcation and draft declaration were published in the Gazettes dated 6.3.2007 and 7.3.2007 as well as in the local newspapers duly dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is explained that the urgency clause has been invoked since the properties are required urgently as most of the stretch of the road has already been widened and stretch where the property in question is situated is a bottleneck. So far as the alleged discrepancy in the total extent of petitioner’s premises and the extent of land acquired is concerned, it is explained as under : “… … … as per the TSLR the extents recorded against T.S.No.2 is 286 sq. mts. and T.S.No.4 is 238 sq. mts. In the Sub-Division Record prepared, the T.S. numbers have been sub-divided for the aﬀected areas. As per the sub-division area statement the extent aﬀected in T.S.No.2/2 is 203.80 sq. mts. or 243.80 sq. yards and extent aﬀected in T.S.No.4/2 is 30 sq. mts or 35.89 sq. yards. Thus, the total extent aﬀected in both the T.S. number is 279.7 sq. yards. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the total extent of (4) mulgies is 97 sq. yards and aﬀected area is 35.89 sq. yds. whereas extent erroneously shown as 243.81 sq. yards without any basis is in correct. The TSLR is authenticated record and extents covered by the T.S. numbers are as mentioned above. The petitioner may be having title documents for 97 sq. yards and there may be some other owners of the property notiﬁed which ought to have come to the light during enquiry U/s 9 (3) & 10 of L.A. Act.” I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that unless and until the discrepancy in the extent of the land pointed out by the petitioner is enquired into and decided, the respondents cannot be allowed to proceed further. It is also contended that since the title deed of the premises in question shows the total extent is only 97 sq. yards, the impugned acquisition of 279.7 sq. yards out of the petitioner’s premises is impossible. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the impugned notiﬁcation was issued after due survey and demarcation of the entire property aﬀected on the basis of sub- division records which were attested by the competent authority, according to which the extent being aﬀected out of the petitioner’s premises was shown as 279. 7 sq. yards. As could be seen from the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent, the impugned notiﬁcation preceded by necessary survey and demarcation following the procedure prescribed under law. It is also clear that the respondents have taken into consideration the extents covered by town survey numbers as shown in the TSLR which is an authenticated record. May be that, in the title deed in respect of the premises bearing Nos.23-1-1115 to 1118 the total extent was shown as 97 sq. yards, however on that ground it cannot be concluded that the said premises measured only 97 sq.yards contrary to the extent shown in TSLR. Even assuming that there is any discrepancy in the title deed, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for rectiﬁcation, but on that ground the impugned notification cannot be held to be illegal. So far as dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is concerned, the law is well-settled that the question whether it is a case of urgency is a subjective one. This Court is not competent to enquire into the sufficiency of the grounds for forming such opinion. The settled principle of law is that there is a presumption of regularity of oﬃcial acts and mere denial that the Government had not formed an opinion as to the urgency or the allegation that the Government did not apply its mind to the question of urgency cannot be a ground warranting interference by this Court. It is also relevant to note that in the instant case there is no allegation of any mala fides nor the public purpose for which the land is acquired is disputed. There is also no allegation of violation of any statutory requirements. The objection, if any, with regard to measurement of the land can be raised by the petitioner before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is without any remedy. Viewed from any angle, the interference by this Court is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.09.2008 gbs