HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11357 of 2009 Date: 12.11.2010 Between : M/s.Charminar Papers Limited, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. …….Petitioner And Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit IV, O.R.R. Projects, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. ….Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11357 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings by publishing a declaration after the lapse of draft notification, without conducting the 5-A inquiry and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land covered by Sy.No.117, admeasuring Ac.3.34 gts., situated in Muttangi village of Patancheru Mandal, Medak District without due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this writ petition, are as under : The State of Andhra Pradesh has planned to form a outer ring road surrounding the city of Hyderabad and for the said purpose, land acquisition proceedings have been initiated for acquiring various lands. Several notifications were issued at different times for acquisition of land required for the purpose of constructing the road. Such acquisitions for the road purpose are not the subject matter of this writ petition. In forming such outer ring road, there were several junctions. One such junction is planned at Muttangi village, which is named as ‘Muttangi- Patancheru junction’. For the purpose of said junction, the Project Director of outer ring road, who is the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), a body constituted under A.P. Urban Areas Development Act of 1975, has issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying an extent of Ac.23.29 ½ guntas of land, and the same is published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 11th of May 2006. As per the said notification, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) is designated to perform the functions of Collector under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner, who is the owner of the land covered by Sy.No.117 and whose land is also acquired to an extent of Ac.3.32 ½ gts., has filed this writ petition. Subsequent to the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, respondents have notified by notification, dated 14th May 2007, which is also published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, amending the extents of lands, which are requisitioned for the purpose of the aforesaid junction. Initially, an extent of Ac.3.32 ½ gts. of petitioner’s land was notified for acquisition, and the same is amended as Ac.3.34 gts. by the aforesaid amendment. For the aforesaid acquisition notified by notification, dated 11th May 2006, petitioner, on his own, has raised his objections by his representation, dated 16th June 2006, and based on such objections, after conducting necessary inquiry, a report was sent by the designated authority under Section 5-A of the Act and the respondent, having rejected the objections, has issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in Form 5-A and the same is published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 22nd of May 2007. After issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, an award inquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 1st of November 2007. Consequent to passing of the award, notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 05.11.2007. The petitioner made a representation on 12.12.2007, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequent to passing of the award, possession of the land in question was taken on 19.11.2007, and as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is also handed over to the Engineering Department, which in turn, handed it over to the contractor concerned, to execute the works. 3. This writ petition is filed on 10th of June 2009, questioning the acquisition proceedings. As alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the action of respondent in initiating the land acquisition proceedings, even before finalization of junction plan, for which purpose, the land is being acquired, is illegal. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the notification was issued, although he has submitted a representation raising objections for the proposed acquisition, no valid inquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated in the affidavit that with regard to the objections filed by the petitioner, no valid inquiry is conducted to hear his objections and without considering the objections validly, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the outer ring road project is an important infrastructure initiative in Hyderabad Metro region, undertaken by HUDA, to provide connectivity to various State highways and National highways and to facilitate intra-city and inter- city traffic in view of burgeoning urbanization and increasing traffic congestion. In the counter affidavit, respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition, mainly on the ground of delay and laches. In the counter, it is stated that the notification was issued on 11.05.2006, 5-A inquiry was conducted on 25.07.2006 and that the petitioner has participated in both the inquiries. It is stated that the award has been passed on 01.11.2007 and possession of the land was taken on 19.11.2007, and in view of the title dispute with regard to the land of the petitioner, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as such, it is stated that the writ petition, as filed, is a belated one and is not maintainable in view of the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. In the counter, it is averred that with regard to the land required for the purpose of junction, notification, dated 11.05.2006 was issued and the same was published in Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi newspapers on 17.05.2006 and local publication was made on 27.05.2006. It is stated that the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company has filed objection petition on 16.06.2006, and with reference to the said objections, a notice has been issued on 18.07.2006, fixing the date of hearing as 25.07.2006. It is stated that Sri T.V.Rao, Managing Director and three others, have participated in the 5-A inquiry on 25.07.2006 and the objections raised by the petitioner were considered and a detailed report was submitted to the Collector. The Collector, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, rejected them, and subsequently, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The draft declaration is published in Indian Express and Eenadu newspapers on 29.05.2007, as such, the declaration was issued within the Statutory time as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that an amendment to draft notification was issued vide Gazette No.40, dated 14.05.2007, and the same is also published in newspapers. It is stated that amendment to draft notification was necessitated as per the survey conducted. It has been averred in the counter that as per the amendment, acquisition of petitioner’s land has been increased from Ac.3.32 ½ gts. to Ac.3.34 gts., and that means, only 1 ½ gts. was increased. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed his objections regarding compensation and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the counter, it is averred that the award has been passed on 05.11.2007 and possession of land was taken over on 19.11.2007 and work was entrusted to the contractor. With reference to the allegation of petitioner that no valid inquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is stated that the petitioner has participated in 5-A inquiry conducted on 25.07.2006 and his objections were considered and a detailed report was sent to the Collector, who was delegated with the power by the Government. By making the above said averments, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Additional counter affidavit is also filed. In the additional counter affidavit, while reiterating the stand already taken in the counter affidavit, which was filed earlier, it is stated that with regard to the very same land, there was a rival claim for compensation, by one G.Vittal and others, as such, after determination of compensation amount of Rs.32,81,307/-, matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the said amount was deposited in the Civil Court, Sanga Reddy. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is trying to project his case by contending that the respondent has originally proposed to acquire different land from that of the land now acquired and that the land now acquired was not the subject matter of earlier notification, dated 11.05.2006, but the said contention is absurd. It is specifically stated that the very same land for which notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on 11.05.2006, is being acquired for formation of junction. While enclosing the designs prepared for the purpose of junction, it is stated that the earlier design was ‘partial flower leaf design’ and the same is re-designed as ‘double trumpet design’ as per the requirement, but the land used is one and the same and there is no variation at all. It is further stated that the petitioner has participated in the inquiry conducted on 25.07.2006, and only thereafter, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner. While reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, it is stated in the reply affidavit that there is vast variation in the extent and nature of property, which was initially notified on 11.05.2006 when compared with the amended notification issued on 14.05.2007. It is stated that if there is no variation in the extent of land, there is no reason as to why some properties, which are covered under earlier notification, dated 11.05.2006, were excluded in the notification, dated 14.05.2007. The petitioner also reiterated his stand that he was not given any opportunity in the inquiry conducted pursuant to the objections filed by him. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the respondents have initially sought to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.3.32 ½ gts., keeping in mind the design that was prepared at the relevant time, but later, they have changed the design, due to which, different extents of land and different structures are acquired, and inspite of the same, no further inquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act after the amended notification is issued. It is further stated that as the petitioner is not well-versed with the procedural aspects and factual position, there was some delay on his part, but the same cannot be the reason to reject his claim on the aforesaid ground. 7. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, that though initially, only an extent of Ac.3.32 ½ gts., of land was notified along with structures, subsequently, amended notification was issued, increasing the area to Ac.3.34 gts., which is at variance from the earlier notification. It is submitted that inspite of the same, no inquiry is conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, after the amended notification is issued, and even before such inquiry is conducted, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, which is not permissible in law. Further, it is submitted that under the guise of amendment, there is no authority or jurisdiction for the respondent to increase the area from Ac.3.32 ½ gts. to Ac.3.34 gts. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the land, which is notified at initial stages is based on one design and the land which is now declared and which is sought to be acquired pursuant to the declaration, is totally different and distinct and the same is evident from the notification itself. It is submitted that if the properties, which are coming under acquisition are compared from 1st notification to that of the amended notification, the same is at variance, as such, it is not open for the respondent to notify one land and acquire different land, having changed the design for the purpose of accommodating some persons to avoid acquisition of their lands. It is further contended by the learned counsel that no valid inquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Vs. V.Chandrappa[1], in Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Vs. Governor of Delhi[2], and in the case of Union of India Vs. Mukesh Hans[3], and also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of E.P.Vinaya Sagar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy[4]. 9. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent, that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of abnormal and unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. It is submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act were considered and rejected in the inquiry conducted on 25.07.2006, and the award was passed on 01.11.2007, and possession of the land was already taken, which was entrusted to the Engineering Department for the purpose of using the same for junction, which, in turn, has handed over to the contractor, but in view of the status quo orders passed by this Court, further works were stopped. It is submitted that as per the alignment prepared around the city of Hyderabad to construct a ring road, several junctions are to be formed and one such junction is ‘Muttangi-Patancheru junction’, for which, an extent of Ac.23.29 ½ gts. of land was acquired, out of which, the petitioner’s land is only to an extent of Ac.3.34 gts. It is submitted that inspite of paying compensation for the entire land, the respondent-authorities are not able to make use of the same in view of the status quo orders passed by this Court. It is further submitted that initially, it was found that only an extent of Ac.3.32 ½ gts. of petitioner’s land is required, but after surveying the land by entering into the land pursuant to 4(1) notification, it was found that an additional land to an extent of 1 ½ gts. was also affected, as such, further notification was issued, amending the 4(1) notification. It is submitted that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner, on his own, has filed his objections, objecting the acquisition and with reference to his objections, a notice was issued to the petitioner, and in response to the same, he has appeared and participated in the inquiry conducted on 25.07.2006 and his objections were considered and rejected. It is submitted that consequent to the same, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and subsequently, award inquiry was conducted and award was passed on 01.11.2007. It is further submitted that dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner also made a representation, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act, but at this belated stage, by making false allegations, this writ petition is filed. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no change in the land and there was only a change in the designs within the same land, which was notified, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that a different land is being acquired, than the originally proposed one. It is further submitted that a perusal of the plans, which are also filed along with the counter affidavit, reveal that within the same land, which was notified under the Land Acquisition Act initially, there was a change in the design, as such, it cannot be construed that a different land is acquired. It is submitted by the learned counsel that 4(1) notification was issued based on the requisition, and after entering into the land which was notified, a survey was conducted, and only thereafter, respondents have come to know the exact extent of land and the structures, which are coming under acquisition, and basing on the same, the structures, which are coming under acquisition, alone were notified, and as such, it cannot be said that there is variance in the structures, to infer that the land acquired itself is different to that of the land originally notified. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the land of the petitioner is a small extent in the large chunk of land notified for different purposes and any interference at this stage, will jeopardize the larger public interest. In support of his argument, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.[5], and in the case of May George Vs. Special Tahsildar[6]. 10. From the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be seen in this case is, as to whether any illegality is committed by the respondent-authorities in acquiring the land of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has also referred to certain notifications issued earlier for the purpose of acquisition of his land for construction of outer ring road, but the said acquisitions are not subject matter of the present writ petition, and it is not known as to why the particulars of earlier notifications are also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the designs for construction of junction, and also perused the various notifications issued by the authorities in acquisition proceedings. Initially, an extent of Ac.23.29 ½ gts. was notified for acquisition, which included the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.32 ½ gts., but subsequently, notification was issued, amending the extent. As per the amendment, the extent of petitioner’s land, which is notified earlier, was amended as Ac.3.34 gts., instead of Ac.3.32 ½ gts. Even after issuance of notification for construction of junction, which is published in the Gazette on 11.05.2006, petitioner, on his own, has filed objections to the acquisition proceedings. Though it is the case of the petitioner that no valid inquiry was conducted and he was not given the opportunity of hearing in the inquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is to be noticed that as evident from the set of papers filed by the respondents, after the notification, dated 11.05.2006, was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner has filed his objections by way of representation on 16.06.2006. Referring to such objections filed by the petitioner, a notice, dated 18.07.2006, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to appear in person or through Advocate, to represent the matter in the inquiry to be conducted on 25.07.2006. It is also evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner, he has participated in the inquiry, wherein, his objections were considered and report was sent to the authorities under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given the opportunity of personal hearing in the matter, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Further submission is made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the declaration was issued even before the amendments were notified. Here, it is to be noticed that the amendment notified is with regard to the extent of land, and such amendment notification issued by the authorities dates back to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, by which, the extent of petitioner’s land, which was notified as Ac.3.32 ½ gts., was amended as Ac.3.34 gts. While it is true that 1 ½ gts. of excess land was notified, but with regard to substantial portion of land, petitioner on his own, has already filed objections for acquisition and such objections were considered and rejected. Merely because an amendment is issued to the original notification, it is not necessary to make a fresh inquiry into the matter after the amendments were notified with regard to the extent of land. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the authorities are illegal, only on the ground that there was no subsequent inquiry pursuant to the amendments notified to the original notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, it is to be seen that by virtue of such increase in the extent of land, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings, having regard to the nature of objections raised by him, so as to invalidate the acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground, at this stage. 11. The further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there were no designs at the time of notification, as there was no public purpose existed, also cannot be accepted. When the initial survey was conducted having planned for various junctions, a requisition was sent by the authorities, and having regard to the same, the respondent herein has notified the land for acquisition. Initially, as evident from 4(1) notification itself, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of preliminary notification, which permits the authorities to enter into the land, to survey it and to arrive at the correct portions, which are coming under acquisition for the public purpose notified. The learned counsel for petitioner has shown the variance in the structures, which are notified initially in the notification, dated 11.05.2006, and in the further amended notification, dated 14.05.2007. It is true that there is variation in the structures, but that does not necessarily mean that the respondents have changed the land itself for the purpose of acquisition. As evident from the plans, which are produced along with the additional counter affidavit, it is clear that the very same land, which was subject matter of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, is acquired and taken possession for the purpose of construction of junction. Within the notified land, if there is change in the design, that does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. Having regard to the technical feasibilities, and to connect such junctions to various roads, initially, it is stated that the respondents have designed ‘partial flower leaf design’, which is changed to ‘double trumpet design’, but that does not substantiate the plea of the petitioner that there is a change in the acquisition proceedings. Some plans were also sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, but it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the said plans are self-styled designs of the petitioner and the same are not in synchronization with the approved plans prepared by the authorities. In that view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner that the portion of land, which was subject matter of the initial notification, is changed and a different land is taken possession, also, cannot be accepted. 12. On the other hand, the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General merits consideration to reject the relief sought