IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 31276 of 1997 Between: 1 N.C.Krishnamacharulu, S/o N.C.Venkatacharyulu, R/o H.No. 6-3-609/53, Anandanagar Colony, Kharitabad, Hyderabad- 004 2 Sri. A.Venkataramulu @ Venkataiah, S/o Sayanna, R/o Plot No. 204, Siddaratha Mayuri Apartments, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-16 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Constituted under Urban Development Authorities Act, Rep. by its Secretary and having its office at 1-8-323, Paiga Palace, Police Lines, Secunderabd 003 2 Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Authority, Taranaka, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue the Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable writ or direction to the 1st Respondent calling for the records of its letter No.B/5673/76 dt. 30.8.1997 and quash the same and declare that the action taken pursuant thereto in domolishing the premises no. 7.1.618/5 built on the area is illegal and arbitrary anf violative of the petitioner's rights to hold property secured by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRA.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.DHANANJAY REDDY(SC FOR HUDA) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.31276 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioners challenge notice, dated 30.8.1997 issued by the first respondent. The impugned notice is addressed to one Smt. Vijayalakshmi. It was mentioned that the land in Survey Nos.235, 236 and 237 of Ameerpet Revenue Village, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-28 guntas and 21 square yards was acquired by the first respondent under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) and possession was also taken on 4.8.1981. It was mentioned that the notification was upheld by this court when challenged and that the addressee of the notice had encroached into the acquired land. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that an extent of 612 square yards of land in the said Survey Numbers was purchased by one Smt.M.Vijayalakshmi through a sale deed dated 18.7.1975 from one Mohd. Mashithulla and others. It is stated that Vijayalakshmi executed a Will deed dated 16.6.1976 and that she died on 31.7.1977. The first petitioner executed an agreement of sale, dated 28.1.1990 in favour of the second petitioner. A reference is made to W.P.No.20858 of 1997 filed by the son of the second petitioner challenging the very notice and dismissal thereof on 01.09.1997. The petitioners contend that neither in the notification dated 4.8.1977 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act nor in the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act on 15.2.1979, the name of Vijayalakshmi was mentioned. It is also stated that the Award, dated 27.7.1981 was passed without hearing the interested persons. The petitioners contend that the substance of the notification was not published within 40 days from the date of publication under Section 4(1) of the Act and that the notification in respect of the vast extent of land in the surrounding area was set-aside on that ground. They have also made a reference to W.P.No.3599 of 1986 filed by the husband of late Vijayalakshmi by name M.V.R.N.Chary. Various grounds are pleaded in challenge to the impugned notice. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the proceedings initiated under the Act vis-à-vis the land have become final and the land is vested in the Government. According to them, several writ petitions were filed by pleading one ground or the other in relation to the same land and all of them have been dismissed and it is urged that the writ petition does not merit consideration. Sri K.Subramanya Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the facts that are borne out from the record would clearly disclose that Vijayalakshmi was never put on notice at any stage of the proceedings and in that view of the matter, the land cannot be said to be validly acquired by the respondents. He contends that though an effort was made by the son of the second petitioner to protect possession, this court did not grant any relief on the ground that the actual owner is not before the court. Learned senior counsel submits that since the actual owners are before this court, the order passed in W.P.No.20858 of 1997 cannot be treated as resjudicata. As regards the validity of the proceedings under the Act, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.I.S. Employees House Building Coop. Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others [1] Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings under the Act became final several decades ago, so much so the possession was taken and compensation was deposited. He contends that not only the impugned notice was challenged in the writ petition but also the husband of Vijayalakshmi filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. Learned standing counsel submits that the petitioners have opened third round of litigation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned notice. The grievance of the petitioners is only vis-à-vis the notice, dated 30.8.1997. The notice itself does not bring about any change in the legal status of the parties. It is clearly mentioned that the land in question was acquired under the Act and possession thereof was taken on 4.8.1981. The effort of the respondents by issuing impugned notice is only to protect the possession over the land. Even assuming that the grounds pleaded by the petitioners, be it in the context of any defect in the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, or in the Award, they can, at the most constitute grounds for assailing the notifications. Petitioners did not choose to challenge the notifications and once the land vested in the respondents by operation of law, the petitioners do not have any right over the structures existing thereon. The first petitioner based his claim on the Will said to have been executed by Vijayalakshmi. It is not as if the legal descendants of Vijayalakshmi have given up, or waived their rights over it. Her husband filed W.P.No.3599 of 1986 challenging the proceedings under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed on 31.12.1988. For the first time, the petitioners surfaced through an alleged Will in the year 1977. In his affidavit, M.V.R.N. Chary stated that his wife expired on 31.1.1997 leaving himself as her only legal heir. The petitioner, on the other hand, claiming as legatee, under the Will said to have been executed on 16.6.1976 pleaded that Vijayalakshmi died on 31.7.1977. In the Will also, the date of sale deed is mentioned as 18.7.1985 i.e. much subsequent to the date of execution of Will and the same was sought to be explained and it is stated that it is a typographical mistake. This court finds a serious dispute as to the very date of death of Vijayalakshmi. While her husband pleaded that she died in the year 1997, the petitioner, who is neither relative nor the legal heir, states that she died in the year 1977. The matter has assumed finality as regards the validity of proceedings under the Act as well as the challenge to the impugned notice. It is no doubt true that in I.I.S. Employees House Building Coop. Society Ltd’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme court held that failure on the part of the Government to indicate the names of the actual owners in the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 or non-issuance of 5(A) of the Act to the actual owners, would vitiate proceedings. That however would be a factor when challenge is made to the proceedings under the Act. In the instant case, the petitioners did not challenge the proceedings under the Act. Viewed from any angle, no relief can be granted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 8.12.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA} [1] (2005) 12 S.C.C.483