HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16062 of 2008 and WRIT PETITION No.16064 of 2008 Monday, the 24th day of August 2009 WRIT PETITION No.16062 of 2008 Between: Shafeeq Hussain Niaz. … Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit-I, O.R.R., HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Respondent * * * WRIT PETITION No.16064 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Ajaz Ahmed. … Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit-I, O.R.R., HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16062 of 2008 and WRIT PETITION No.16064 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: In view of the interdependency and commonality of the questions involved, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 25.7.2008. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard the counsel on record. 4. W.P.No.16062 of 2008: The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the non-issue of Mandatory Notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal and subsequent issue of Notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007 directing the petitioner to submit the consent proposal for allotment of plot @ 75% of effected plot, as illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to allot a plot @ 100% of effected plot and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated that the petitioner purchased Plot No.MIG-147 in Sy.No.626/1/2, admeasuring 258.33 square yards on 29.11.2005, vide document No.12870/05 of SRO Shamshabad, R.R. District. The respondent contemplated to acquire the plot of the petitioner for the purpose of Outer Ring Road and initiated acquisition proceedings. 6. Further it is stated that the respondent, based on the address available with him, had communicated Section 12(2) Award proceedings vide Lr.No.LA/Unit-I/71/2006, dated 01.10.2007, awarding a gross amount of Rs.4,26,691/- and after deducting TDS, the net payable amount is Rs.3,82,742/- It is also stated that the respondent failed to send notices/notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 5 (A) and also under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Act” for the purpose of convenience) stating the particulars of the plot of the petitioner to enable him to appear personally or by agent before the respondent to give his consent. 7. Further it is stated that the respondent, despite the fact that he was in possession and knowledge of the address of the petitioner, did not send the notice under Section 9 of the Act and passed award with mala fide intention. It is also stated that the petitioner aggrieved by the notice LA/Unit-I/71/2006, dated 01.10.2007 issued by the respondent, got issued a legal notice on 08.12.2008 calling upon the respondent to furnish copies of the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the upset price fixed by the HUDA for auction of the plots in the State, but in vain. 8. Further it is stated that the respondent, instead of furnishing the information sought for, had issued notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007, dated 22.4.2008 informing the petitioner that the Award under Section 11 of the Act had already been pronounced and, hence, no action can be taken at this stage. Once the award is pronounced, this office becomes functious officio. 9. The following grounds also had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition: 1. Passing of award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act without issuing he mandatory notice under section 9 of the L.A. Act is illegal and unsustainable. 2. Issuing Notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007, dated 22.4.2008 directing to submit consent proposal for allotment of Plot @ 75% of effected plot is unjustified and arbitrary. In such circumstances, the present writ petition had been filed. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the Estate Officer, HUDA, had sent requisition for acquisition of certain houses/plots situated in Sy.No.626/1 in Shamshabad village and Mandal (HUDA Colony) for Outer Ring Road Project of Phase-I. The survey staff had surveyed the lands covered by houses and open plots, prepared sub-division record to an extent of Ac.43-16 guntas in Sy.No.626/1/2 affecting ORR, out of which a layout had been prepared to an extent of about Ac.4-00 guntas. In this layout 343 houses had been constructed and 92 plots had been kept open. Out of these 114 houses and 43 open plots had been sold and allotted to the beneficiaries by the HUDA. The HUDA had submitted requisition for sold out houses and plots only. The writ petitioner is the plot owner of MIG-155, HUDA Colony, Shamshabad village and Mandal. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued invoking urgency clause section (4) of 17 of Act. 11. Further it is stated that it is true that after obtaining the address from the requisition department, notices under Section 12 (2) had been sent to the writ petitioner. Further it is stated that in reply to para 5 it is stated that 4 (1) Notification was issued on 13.3.2007 and published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.8 and Declaration under Section (6) of the Act was issued on 14.3.2007 and published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.9. The total extent notified admeasuring 15820 square metres is required for Outer Ring Road. The following are the DN particulars: i) A.P. Gazette Notification ORR No.08, dated 13.3.2007 ii) Newspaper publication Vaartha paper (Telugu) dated 15.3.2007. iii) Newpaper publication Deccan Chronicle paper (English) dated 15.3.2007. iv) Substance publication dated 21.3.2007 5-A enquiry was dispensed due to invoking of urgency clause section (4) of 17 of Act. The following are the DD particulars. a) A.P. Gazette Notification ORR No.9, dated 14.3.2007 b) Newspaper publication Andhra Jyothi paper (Telugu) dated 19.3.2007; c) Newspaper publication, The Times of India (English) dated 19.3.2007 d) Substance publication, dated 21.3.2007 After complying with the formalities under Section 4 (1) & 6 of the Act, Award inquiry Notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued in Form 7 to the individual house losers/plot holders and also general notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 in Form 6 was issued to the interested persons on 22.3.2007 calling them to appear either in person or through counsel with relevant records on 10.4.2007 at 11.00 a.m. and the same was published at prominent places i.e., on notice board of the office of the M.R.O/M.D.O and Gram Panchayat affixed due to non-availability of addresses of the awardees and Award was pronounced on 21.9.2007 12. It is also stated that in response to this office 12(2) notice, the counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner had issued legal notice on 08.12.2007 calling upon the respondent to furnish the copies of the publication of draft notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act i.e., after passing of Award dated 21.9.2007. 13. Further it is stated that in response to his legal notice, a reply had been given to the counsel as well as awardee that the Award had already pronounced and no further action can be taken at this stage. However, a policy decision had been taken by the Project Level Empowered Committee in minutes of the meeting of Project Level Committee held in Vide Chairman’s chamber on 9.4.2008 to allow the awardees to file consent as per the package announced by the Government G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, even though Award was pronounced. As per the package, the plot losers are eligible for 50% of plot in unauthorized G.O. layout and 75% of plot in authorized layout/HUDA layout out of total area of plot under acquisition. If the awardee is willing to file consent for the above package, he has to submit consent; otherwise he has a right to approach the civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the L.A. Act on the compensation awarded. 14. Further it is stated in relation to the grounds raised that after the notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 had been published at prominent places, the Award was pronounced on 21.9.2007. So far, out of 114 affected houses, 95 awardees and out of 43 open plots, 30 plots owners had already been given consent and got the compensation as per the package announced vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, on various dates in Lok Adalat. An individual notice to the petitioner could not be served because of the address was not available at that time. 15. In reply to para 2 it is stated that above all, 70% of plot losers had availed the opportunity provided by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, as per the package. The petitioner had been asked to submit consent proposal if agreed to the above package. Otherwise he has opportunity to file claim under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for enhancement of compensation on the amount awarded in normal Award. 16. In these circumstances, the Government had adopted common policy to implement compensation package in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006 to entire Outer Ring Road Project in which plot losers have to be allotted 50% plot for unauthorized/G.P. layout and 75% plot for authorized/HUDA/DTPC approved layouts out of the total affected extent under acquisition. In response to the above package, most of the plot losers of entire Outer Ring Road Project had filed consents and availed the package. As such the request of the petitioner for allotment of 100% of plot is not considerable, as policy decision cannot change for single individual. If the petitioner is unhappy with the compensation awarded to him, it is open to him to seek enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. 17. W.P.No.16064 of 2008: The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the non-issue of Mandatory Notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal and subsequent issue of Notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007, dated 22.4.2008, directing the petitioner to submit consent proposal for allotment of plot @ 75% of effected plot, as illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to allot a plot @ 100% of affected plot and pass such other suitable orders. 18. It is stated that the petitioner purchased Plot No.MIG-155 in Sy.No.626/1/2, admeasuring 258.33 square yards on 27.7.2005 vide document No.8789/05 of SRO Shamshabad, R.R. District. The respondent contemplated to acquire the plot of the petitioner for the purpose of Outer Ring Road and initiated acquisition proceedings. 19. Further it is stated that the respondent, based on the address available with him, had communicated Section 12(2) award proceedings vide Lr.No.LA/Unit-I/71/2006, dated 01.10.2007, awarding a gross amount of Rs.4,26,691/- and after deducting TDS, the net payable amount is Rs.3,82,742/- It is also stated that the respondent failed to send notices/notifications under Section 4 (1) and 5 (A) and also under Section 9 of the Act stating the particulars of the plot of petitioner to enable him to appear personally or by agent before the respondent to submit his consent. 20. Further it is stated that the respondent, despite the fact that he was in possession and knowledge of the address of the petitioner, did not send the notice under Section 9 of the Act and passed award with mala fide intention. It is also stated that the petitioner aggrieved by the notice LA/Unit-I/71/2006, dated 01.10.2007, issued by the respondent, got issued legal notice on 08.12.2008 calling upon the respondent to furnish copies of the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the upset price fixed by the HUDA for auction of the plots in the State, but in vain. 21. Further it is stated that the respondent instead of furnishing the information sought for, had issued notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007, dated 22.4.2008 informing the petitioner that the Award under Section 11 of the Act had already been pronounced and, hence, no action can be taken at this stage once the award is pronounced this office becomes functious officio. 22. The following grounds also had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition: 1. Passing of award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act without issuing the mandatory notice under section 9 of the L.A. Act is illegal and unsustainable. 2. Issuing Notice No.LA/Unit-I/71/2007, dated 22.4.2008 directing to submit consent proposal for allotment of Plot @ 75% of effected plot is unjustified and arbitrary. In such circumstances, the present writ petition had been filed. 23. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the Estate Officer, HUDA, had sent a requisition for acquisition of certain houses/plots situated in Sy.No.626/1 in Shamshabad village and Mandal (HUDA Colony) for Outer Ring Road Project of Phase-I. The survey staff had surveyed the lands covered by houses and open plots, prepared sub-division record to an extent of Ac.43-16 guntas in Sy.No.626/1/2 affecting ORR, out of which a layout had been prepared to an extent of about Ac.4-00 guntas. In this layout 343 houses had been constructed and 92 plots had been kept open. Out of these 114 houses and 43 open plots had been sold and allotted to the beneficiaries by the HUDA. The HUDA had submitted requisition for sold out houses and plots only. The writ petitioner is the plot owner of MIG-147, HUDA Colony, Shamshabad village and Mandal. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued invoking urgency clause section (4) of 17 of L.A. Act. 24. Further it is stated that it is true that after obtaining the address from the requisition department, notices under Section 12 (2) had been sent to the writ petitioner. Further it is stated that in reply to para 5 it is stated that 4 (1) Notification was issued on 13.3.2007 and published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.8 and Declaration under Section (6) of the Act was issued on 14.3.2007 and published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.9. The total extent notified admeasuring 15820 square metres is required for Outer Ring Road. The following are the DN particulars: i) A.P. Gazette Notification ORR No.08, dated 13.3.2007 ii) Newspaper publication Vaartha paper (Telugu) dated 15.3.2007. iii) Newpaper publication Deccan Chronicle paper (English) dated 15.3.2007. iv) Substance publication dated 21.3.2007 5-A enquiry was dispensed with due to invoking of urgency clause section (4) of 17 of L.A. Act. The following are the DD particulars. a) A.P. Gazette Notification ORR No.9, dated 14.3.2007; b) Newspaper publication Andhra Jyothi paper (Telugu) dated 19.3.2007; c) Newspaper publication, The Times of India (English) dated 19.3.2007; d) Substance publication, dated 21.3.2007; 25. After complying with the formalities under Sections 4 (1) & 6 of the Act, Award inquiry Notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued in Form 7 to the individual house losers/plot holders and also general notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 in Form 6 was issued to the interested persons on 22.3.2007 calling them to appear either in person or through counsel with relevant records on 10.4.2007 at 11.00 a.m. and the same was published at prominent places i.e., on notice board of the office of the M.R.O/M.D.O and Gram Panchayat affixed due to non-availability of addresses of the awardees and Award was pronounced on 21.9.2007 26. It is also stated that in response to this office 12(2) notice the counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner had issued legal notice on 08.12.2007 calling upon the respondent to furnish the copies of the publication of draft notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act i.e., after passing of Award dated 21.9.2007. 27. Further it is stated that in response to his legal notice, a reply had been given to counsel as well as awardee that the Award had already pronounced and no further action can be taken at this stage, however, a policy decision had been taken by the Project Level Empowered Committee in Minutes of the meeting of Project Level Committee held in vide Chairman’s chamber on 9.4.2008 to allow the awardees to file consent as per the package announced by the Government G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, even though Award was pronounced. As per the package, the plot losers are eligible for 50% of plot in unauthorized G.O. layout and 75% of plot in authorized layout/HUDA layout out of total area of plot under acquisition. If the awardee is willing to file consent for the above package, he has to submit consent; otherwise he has a right to approach the civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act on the compensation awarded. 28. Further it is stated in relation to the grounds raised that after the notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 had been published at prominent places, the Award was pronounced on 21.9.2007. So far, out of 114 affected houses 95 awardees and out of 43 open plots, 30 plots owners had already been given consent and got the compensation as per the package announced vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006 on various dates in Lok Adalat. An individual notice to the petitioner could not be served because of the address was not available at that time. 29. In reply to para 2 it is stated that above all 70% of plot losers had availed the opportunity provided by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, as per the package. The petitioner had been asked to submit consent proposal if agreed to the above package. Otherwise he has opportunity to file claim under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation on the amount awarded in normal Award. 30. In these circumstances, the Government had adopted common policy to implement compensation package in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, to entire Outer Ring Road Project in which plot losers have to be allotted 50% plot for unauthorized/G.P. layout and 75% plot for authorized/HUDA/DTPC approved layouts out of the total affected extent under acquisition. In response to the above package, most of the plot losers of entire Outer Ring Road Project had filed consents and availed the package. As such the request of the petitioner for allotment of 100% of plot is not considerable, as policy decision cannot change for single individual. If the petitioner is unhappy with the compensation awarded to him, it is open to him to seek enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 31. The under noted decisions had been relied upon: (1) Nalla Dharma Rao v. Collector, East Godavari District[1]; (2) J.Rajyalakshmi v. Land Acquisition Officer, Huda, Hyderabad[2]; (3) State of T.N. and another v. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others[3]; (4) Velagapudi Kanaka Durga v. District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakapudi and others[4]; (5) Uppalapati Krishna Murthy v. Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department[5]; (6) Nasik Municipal Corporation v. Harbanslal Laikwant Rajpal and others[6]; 32. On a careful analysis of the series of events and also the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, this Court is satisfied that the action impugned does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to give consent to the package or may take appropriate steps for claiming enhancement of compensation. Except giving the above liberty, nothing further can be done in this writ petition. 33. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs. ___________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: August 24th, 2009. BSB [1] 1997 (6) ALD 788 [2] 1998 (6) ALT 140 [3] AIR 1996 SC 866 [4] AIR 1971 APPELLANT 310 [5] 1997 (5) ALT 35 [6] (1997) 4 SCC 199