IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2683 of 2006 Between: Mohd. Mouzam Ali, S/o. the Late Mohd. Khasim Ali, R/o. 10-2-339A, Mellepally Cross Roads, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The M.C.H. rep. by its Commissioner cum Special Officer, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst. City Planner, Circle-I, MCH, Sardar Mahal, Near Charminar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction to the respondents, one more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, directing them to allot to the petitioner a suitable piece of land equal in value, importance and extent with the land of shop front bearing No.16-8-915, Lalzar-Race Course Road Junction, Malakpet, Hyderabd, from out of the following sites pointed out by the petitioners; i) the left over space of the former saifabad Police Station infront of Lakdikapol after the former P.S. was shifted to the other side of the pul, ii) the left over site of the Begum Bazar Police Station after a new police station was built behind the Old Station. iii) The site in t.S.No.161 P, Block "K", Ward 36 extent 58.24 S1. Meters, Masab Tank OR from out of the 3 following sites pointed out by the respondents; i) Place of Land in MCH Workshop ( Jain Garden) at Malakpet, adjacent to the Petrol Pumb, which was shown to the petitioner in September 2004, ii) Left over land after demolition of the Traffic Police Station at kali Khabar. iii) Equavalent land adjacent to Lorry Stand, Chaderghat, According to the choice and option of the petitioner made by him after the Respondents disclose to the petitioner the so called third party claims to those sites, or in case, and only in case, the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that no equally important and valuable land of equal extent, of the petitioner’s land can be allotted to within a short time as fixed by the Hon'ble Court, compensation for the land taken over from the petitioner as per its value noted in the Basic Values Register with commercial interest thereon from April 2002 2002 and with the statutory solatium or pass any other suitable order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAM SHAH Counsel for the Respondents.:MR. R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR GHMC. The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.16-8-915, Lalzar – Race Course Road Junction, Malakpet, Hyderabad. An extent of 0.30 sq. yards of his premises along with structures thereon was sought to be acquired for road widening. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16953 of 2001 contending that the respondent Corporation was contemplating to take possession of the part of the premises for road widening without following the due process of law. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 17.08.2001 directing the 1st respondent herein to follow the due process of law in the event of the portion of the premises owned by the petitioner is required for road widening. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order dated 17.08.2001 passed in W.P.No.16953 of 2001, which reads as hereunder: “The petitioner is not willing to part with his valuable land by giving consent. The petitioner contends that he is entitled for the compensation not only for the structure in question but also for the land which is likely to be affected in the road widening. In the circumstances, the respondent-Corporation cannot compel the petitioner to give consent for parting with his valuable land without any compensation whatsoever. Therefore, the respondent is directed not to forcibly take possession of the land in question and the structure without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the said Act. It shall be open to the Corporation to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with law and proceed further, if it is so advised and utilise the land for the widening of the road.” The 1st respondent Corporation took possession of the part of the premises owned by the petitioner and paid compensation for structures thereon. With regard to the land compensation, 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 18.02.2002 allotting 30 sq. yards of land situated in the ward office, Chaderghat Bridge, in lieu of compensation for the land. When the 1st respondent obstructed him to make use of the land allotted to him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25084 of 2002. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 19.12.2002 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation within ten days expressing his willingness to have the land registered at his cost and within ten days thereafter, the respondents shall take steps to see that the land earmarked for the petitioner is registered. The petitioner filed C.C.No.1079 of 2003 complaining disobedience of the order dated 19.12.2002 passed in W.P.No.25084 of 2002. The said Contempt Case came to be disposed of on 18.11.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.11.2003 passed in C.C.1079 of 2003 reads as hereunder: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.25084/2002 was to the effect that the petitioner shall submit his representation within 10 days from the date of the order, expressing his willingness to accept the said piece of land, and to get it register at his cost. On account of the objection raised by the Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board, further steps for registration of the piece of land which was initially offered to the petitioner could not fructify. It has also come on record that the respondents have shown another piece of land and that the same was not acceptable to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of contempt of Court. If the petitioner insists on allotment of another piece of land or payment of compensation for his land, he has to seek necessary modification of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25084/2002.” Thereupon, the petitioner filed WPMP No.3435 of 2004 seeking necessary modification of the order dated 19.12.2002 passed in W.P.No.25084 of 2002. The said WPMP came to be disposed of on 07.07.2004. The order passed in WPMP No.3435 of 2004 reads as hereunder: “Heard both sides. It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the sites which were shown by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner were not available for assignment to the petitioner, on the ground that there are third party claims over those pieces of land against the Government and the same are pending. In such circumstances, it is not possible for the respondents to allot those lands. However, the respondents are still eager to allot a suitable land if available or if they were permitted, they would pay the compensation by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner P.Ram Shah, submits that there are two more sites identified by the client which are available for allotment. In such an event, the petitioner is at liberty to inform the same to the respondents by way of a representation. Upon making such representation, the same shall be considered and necessary order will be passed thereon by the respondents. It is made clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from accepting any compensation granted by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, with the above observation, the WPMP is disposed of.” The petitioner entered into correspondence with the respondents Corporation for allotment of alternative site. There being no fruitful result of his persuasion with the respondents Corporation, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition reads as hereunder: “For the reasons and in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction to the respondents, one more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, directing them to allot to the petitioner a suitable piece of land equal in value, importance and extent with the land of shop front bearing No.16-8-915, Lalzar – Race Course Road Junction, Malakpet, Hyderabad, from out of the following sites pointed out by the petitioner: i) The left over space of the former Saifabad Police Station in front of Lakdikapool after the former P.S. was shifted to the other side of the Pul. ii) The left over site of the Begum Bazar Police Station after a new Police Station was built behind the old Station. iii) The site in T.S.No.161 P, Block ‘K’, Ward 36 extent 58.24 sq. meters, Masab Tank, OR from out of the 3 following sites pointed out by the respondents: i) Piece of land in MCH workshop (Jail Garden) at Malakpet, adjacent to the petrol pump, which was shown to the petitioner in September, 2004. ii) Left over land after demolition of the Traffic Police Station at Kali Khabar. iii) Equivalent land adjacent to Lorry Stand, Chaderghat. According to the choice and option of the petitioner made by him after the Respondents disclose to the petitioner the so called third party claims to those sites, Or In case, and only in case, the Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion hat no equally important and valuable land of equal extent, of the petitioner’s land can be allotted to him, to direct that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner within a short time as fixed by the Hon’ble Court, compensation for the land taken over from the petitioner as per its value noted in the Basic Values Register with commercial interest thereon from April, 2002 and with the statutory solatium or pass any other suitable order.” 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.02.2006. 3. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. The factual aspect of taking possession of the part of the premises bearing No.16-8-915, Lalzar – Race Course Road Junction, Malakpet, Hyderabad, owned by the petitioner, and payment of compensation for structures thereon is not disputed by the respondents Corporation. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that necessary proceedings have been initiated for payment of the compensation. Para.4 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “4. In reply to para 21 to 29 of the affidavit I submit that it is true that the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.3435 of 2004 in W.P.no.25084 of 2002 seeking modification of earlier order and same was disposed with the order as stated in para.22 of the affidavit. It is also true that the petitioner addressed letters seeking to allot site at Saidabad Police Station or left over site at Begum Bazar Police Station. As there is no land to allot as claimed by the petitioner at the sites shown by the petitioner, this respondent forwarded the proposals on 19.10.2004 for passing award under Land Acquisition Act for the property affected. After completing necessary procedure, draft notification was published on 2-3-2006 and after completing the necessary enquiry and passing award, necessary compensation will be paid to the petitioner.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents having taken possession of the part of the land owned by the petitioner in the year 2001 cannot be permitted to contend that the sites spotted by the petitioner for allotment are not available. Learned counsel took me to the orders passed in the earlier Writ Petitions as well as Contempt Case. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation submits that proceedings have been initiated for payment of compensation and award is yet to be passed. A further submission has been made that the sites indicated by the petitioner are not available for allotment. 7. I have gone through the orders passed in the earlier Writ Petitions as well as Contempt Case. Indisputably, the petitioner has been paid compensation for structures. What is to be paid is the value of the land. Certain commitment has been made by the respondents Corporation with regard to allotment of site at Chadharghat, Hyderabad. Ultimately, the site proposed for allotment proved to be not feasible. The respondents stated in para.4 of the counter-affidavit that the proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act for fixing the compensation. 8. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents Corporation to complete the award enquiry for payment of compensation to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}