THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.13588 of 2009 Date : 4-12-2009 Between Mrs. Shareefa Begum .. Petitioner And Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.13588 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Court issued rule nisi on issued rule nisi on 9-7-2009 and granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises in question until further orders in W.P.M.P.No.17699/2009. 2. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.C/529/2009 dated 24-6-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and to set-aside the same along with the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Memo No.C/529/2009 dated 30-6-2009 and all the consequential proceedings and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009 is filed by respondents 2 and 4 in the Writ Petition, the District Collector, Hyderabad District and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.H.M.C. to permit the Land Acquisition Officer to withdraw the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) Act dated 8-5-2009 and published in Gazette No.20, dated 8-5-2009 and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. Counter affidavit had been filed by the 1st respondent in the said application/writ petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the petitioners in W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009/respondents 2 and 4 in the Writ Petition, would maintain that in the light of the reasons well explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the draft notification as prayed for in the said application. However, Sri Prabhakar, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner would maintain that such further reasons cannot be recorded and if the petitioners in the said application/respondents 2 and 4 in the Writ Petition, pray for permission to withdraw the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act simpliciter, the Counsel has no objection and by recording the same, the Writ Petition may be closed without making any further observations. The learned Counsel also would maintain that making any further observations in this regard would cause prejudice to the writ petitioner. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factore and others [1]. 5. It is averred in para-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009, sworn to by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-I, G.H.M.C., Hyderabad, had placed a requisition vide letter dated 31-1-2007 for acquisition of certain properties for the purpose of road widening from Charminar to Falaknuma (Charminar road) situated at Shaher-e- Hyderabad vg, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District. On receipt of the said requisition, the Land Acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The survey staff conducted survey and prepared Sub-Division record. The Sub-Division Record was sent for attestation to the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records vide letter No.C/242/2007 dated 26- 2-2007. The Deputy Director, Survey and Land Record in turn attested the Sub-Division records and communicated to the office of the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., GHMC, Hyderabad. It is further stated that as per the attested Sub-Division Record, the total extent of attested area in respect of the properties which fall in Shaher-e-Hyderabad vg, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad is as hereunder: Sl.No. Premises No. T.S.No. Ward No. Block No. Extent in sq.meters Extent in sq.yards 1 23-2-276 5/1 217 J 14.92 17.85 2 23-2-678, 677 5/2 217 J 29.40 35.17 3 23-2-679 5/3 217 J 14.40 17.23 4 23-2-680 5/4 217 J 17.28 20.67 5 23-1-1115 to 1118 2/2, 4/2 217 A 203.80 30.00 243.80 35.89 6 23-2-621 2/2 217 M 9.60 11.48 7 23-2-620 2/3 217 M 10.20 11.60 8 23-2-153 2/4 217 M 9.70 11.60 Total 339.30 405.89 It is further stated that the Sub-Division Records, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was submitted to the District Collector, Hyderabad vide Special Deputy Collector letter dated 1-3-2007 for his approval. The District Collector, Hyderabad had approved the draft notification proposals vide Memo No.D3/1234/07 dated 6-3-2007. The draft notification was published in the A.P. Gazette dated 6-3-2007 invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Hyderabad District Gazette dated 7-3-2007. The land which was acquitted from the petitioner’s family falls in T.S.No.2/2 and 4/2 bearing premises No.23-1- 1115 to 1118 and 23-1-1119, 23-1-1119/1 to 6, 23-1-1119/5/1 and 23-1- 1119/5/2. In the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6-3-2007 and in the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 7-3-2007 against T.S.No.2/2 and 4/2, the Door numbers were shown as 23/1/1115 to 1118 and the land acquired was 279.69 sq. yards. Actually the two T.S. numbers cover all the Door Nos.23-1-1115 to 1118 and 23-1-1119, 23-1-1119/5/1 and 5/2 (in 4+9 numbers) altogether 13 mulgies. The total land acquired was 279.69 sq. yards. During the award enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, one Mr.Mohd.Haji Pasha, son of the writ petitioner filed claim statement claiming to be the owner of the entire property acquired under two sale deeds bearing Document Nos.1930 and 1931/1965. The officials of the land acquisition Department were not aware that the petitioner and her son Mohd. Haji Pasha were the two owners of the abovesaid 13 mulgies. By an inadvertent mistake, the mulgi Nos.23-1-1119, 23-1-1119/1 to 6, 23-1-1119/5/1 and 1119/5/2 (9 numbers) were not mentioned in the requisition given by the Assistant City Planner, who is the Requisitioning Authority. Therefore, all the door numbers pertaining to 13 mulgies were not mentioned in the draft notification dated 6-3-2007 and draft declaration dated 7-3-2007 though the notification contained the total extent of land acquired under 13 door numbers relating to the mulgies. The draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6-3-2007 in fact covered the entire land belonging to the petitioner and her son pertaining to 13 mulgies. Already an award was passed on 24-11-2008 awarding compensation for the entire land of 279.69 sq. yards. Neither the petitioner in the Writ Petition nor her son ever pointed out that the total land acquired 279.69 sq. yards had been owned by both of them. 6. Further it is stated that the petitioner filed a separate Writ Petition No.26370/2008 alleging that the authorities started demolition of her mulgies bearing Nos.23-1-1119, 23-1-1119/1 to 6, 23-1-1119/5/1 and 23-1-1119/5/2, (9 numbers) without initiating the Land Acquisition proceedings. It is stated that by mistake the officials of G.H.M.C. wrongly instructed the Standing Counsel for GHMC to the effect that the petitioner’s land and building was not included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6-3-2007 and till the Land Acquisition proceedings are initiated, her possession will not be disturbed. This Court, recording the statement of learned Standing Counsel for GHMC disposed off the Writ Petition. It is further stated that under mistaken impression the petitioner’s properties were not covered under the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 6-6-2007 and a fresh draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 8-5- 2009 notifying the aforesaid (9) door numbers pertaining to 9 mulgies. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and this Court admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner from her premises in question until further orders and however the other proceedings may go on subject to the further proceedings of the Court. 7. It is further stated that recently when the 4th respondent approached the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for preparation of counter affidavit in the Writ Petition, on verification of records it was discovered that the land covered by (9) door numbers notified under the present draft notification was already covered by the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6-3-2007 and the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 7-3-2007 and an award was passed for the entire land acquired admeasuring 279.69 sq. yards including the land of the writ petitioner which is notified on 8-5-2009. The present draft notification issued on 8-5-2009 relating to (9) door numbers is a mistake committed by the officials. The petitioner’s land was already notified and award was also passed awarding the compensation and hence the present application is being filed to permit the authorities to withdraw the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 8-5-2009 since the land was already covered by the earlier notification dated 6-3-2007. 8. It is also further stated that it may be relevant to mention that Mr.Haji Pasha, son of the petitioner filed W.P.No.7260/2007 questioning the land acquisition proceedings under the notification dated 6-3-2007 and the same was dismissed on 8-9-2008. The writ appeal No.1530/2008 filed against the order in W.P.No.7260/2007 was also dismissed on 20-11-2008. The petitioner is aware of the same as she and her son live together in the same premises. 9. Several of these details furnished had been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009. It is averred that the petitioner is not concerned with the receipt of requisition dated 31-1-2007 and the issuance of the other inter departmental correspondence as between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 Departments and the petitioner should not be affected. However as seen from the particulars figuring at page 2 (table) the property bearing No.23-1119, 1119/1 to 6, 1119/5/1, 1119/5/2 are not included in the earlier notification. The petitioner’s name also did not figure in the earlier notification. The extent thereon is also not set out properly. The further contention that the land which was acquired from the petitioners family falls in T.S.No.2/2 and 4/2 bearing premises Nos.23/1/1115 to 1118, 23- 1-1119/1-6, 23-1-1119/5/1 and 23-1-1119/5/2 in the notification dated 6- 3-2007 and declaration dated 7-3-2007 is not correct. It is stated that that Mr.Mohd.Haji Pasha, the writ petitioner’s son, which claimed to be the owner was the owner of premises No.23/1/1115 to 1118 under Document No.1930/1965 dated 3-8-1965 which comprises of four mulgies in all admeasuring 97 sq. yards. The four mulgies were purchased in the auction in the name of Haji Pasha on 3-8-1965. Therefore the premises bearing No.23-1-1119 and their sub-numbers were never covered by the earlier notification as alleged. The writ petitioner’s name also was not reflected in the earlier notifications. The very admission on the part of the respondents 2 and 4 in the Writ Petition now that the officials of the land acquisition Department were not aware that the writ petitioner and her son were the true owners of the aforesaid 13 mulgies clearly reflects the manner in which the acquisition proceedings are being undertaken. It is also clear that neither the officers of the acquisition Department nor the officers of the Municipal Department as such bother to verify the records or record the true, correct and actual position by visiting the site is clear in the manner in which the earlier proceedings had been disposed of and the present proceedings are being undertaken. Further it is denied that the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 6-3-2007 covers the entire land belonging to the petitioner and her son is not pertaining to 13 mulgies as false. It is stated that the award passed on 24-11-2008 awarding compensation for the entire land of 279.69 sq. yards takes care of the situation also is not correct for the reason that the total extent of the premises bearing No.23-1-1115 to 1119 along with their sub-numbers comes to about 438 sq. yards. In any view of the matter, the contentions advanced are ex facie incorrect and it appears that the respondents in the Writ Petition bungled the whole issue. 10. It is further stated that as regards the allegations made in para-3 of the affidavit it is true that the writ petitioner had filed W.P.No.26370/2008. However it is not correct to state that by mistake the officials of GHMC instructed the Standing Counsel to the effect that the petitioner’s land and building was not included in the notification dated 6- 3-2007. The allegation about mistaken impression also had been denied. Further, the allegations in para-4 had been denied and it had been clarified that the land is not covered by earlier notifications. It is also further stated that the writ petitioner was not aware about the proceedings said to have been initiated by Haji Pasha at that point of time and as such she could not instruct her counsel in respect of the same. However, the judgment in W.P.No.7260 of 2007 dated 8-9- 2008 would show that the said Writ Petition was filed by Mr.Mohd Haji Pasha challenging acquisition of mulgies bearing Nos.23-1-1115 to 1118 whereunder a direction was sought to inquire and receive objections before acquiring the land admeasuring 35.89 sq. yards out of 97 sq. yards of 4 mulgies bearing Nos.23-1-1115 to 1118 and also further directed the respondent to delete the fictitious names from the possessor column of the aforesaid notification. As a matter of fact, the affidavit filed in support of the present application shows that there is a mistake on the part of the respondents in the Writ Petition in respect of the land/portion covered by the notification dated 6-3-2007 and the consequential award dated 24-11-2008. Perhaps the same may amount to fraudulent exercise of power vested upon the authorities and it is also clear that they provided incorrect and wrong information to this Court based on which this Court passed orders in the Writ Petition filed by Haji Pasha. However the rights of the writ petitioner cannot be adversely affected by virtue of the orders passed thereon and the contentions of the petitioners in this regard are totally misconceived and unsustainable. 11. The undernoted material papers also had been placed. 1. Requisition of Assistant City Planner, Circle-I & S.D.R. 2. Form 2-A, 4(1) draft notification dated 6-3-2007 3. Form No.5 – Draft declaration dated 6-3-2007 4. Order of this Court in W.P.No.7488/2007 dated 12-4-2007 5. Petition of Mohd.Haji Pasha dated 26-3-2007 6. Notice in Form 3 issued vide Ref.No.C/242/05 dated 20-4-2007 7. Concluding orders under Section 5-A in C/242/07 dated 20-9-2007 8. Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 4-10-2007 9. Notice in Form 7 No.C/2242/07 dated 6-10-2007 10. Claim Petition dt.20-11-2008 of Mohd.Haji Pasha and copies of title deeds 11. Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ref.No.C/242/07 dated 16-1-2008 except the writ petitioner’s property 12. Award proceedings No.C/242/2007 dated 24-11-2008 for 279-70 sq. yards. 13. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act 12. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties since certain factual controversies are involved, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion in this regard. Liberty is hereby given to the parties to agitate their rights, if any in accordance with law. Suffice to state that in the light of the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009 and also in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in the said application, the same is hereby ordered. 13. It is needless to say that since the notification itself had been withdrawn and the same had been recorded by ordering W.P.M.P.No.28092/2009 as aforesaid, no further orders need be passed in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. _________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : 4-12-2009 AM [1] 2005(13) S.C.C. 477