IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.11767 of 2006 and 10053 of 2009 W.P.No.11767 of 2006: Between: The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited Regd.No.AMC/HYD(U)/MACS-99(27) CREDIT .... PETITIONER AND The Project Director, Outer Ring Road and Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Tarnaka, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.10053 of 2009: Between: The Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited Regd.No.AMC/HYD(U)/MACS-99(27) CREDIT .... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hdyerabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JSUTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.11767 OF 2006 AND WRIT PETITION No.10053 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed by the Advocates’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited, represented by its President and in view of the commonality of the question involved, both these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. Writ Petition No.11767 of 2006 is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette O.R.R.No.64, dated 20.04.2006 for acquisition of the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.7-16 guntas in Survey No.43 of Munnerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for formation of Outer Ring Road as malafide, arbitrary and illegal and consequently to declare the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification O.R.R.No.73, dated 16.04.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by respondent No.1 as void. 3. Likewise, Writ Petition No.10053 of 2009 is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the Award No.LA/Unit-V/20/ORR/06, dated 04.05.2008 passed by respondent No.3 as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and void and consequently to direct the respondents to redetermine the compensation payable under the said Award. 4. The facts had been narrated in detail in the respective affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions and counter affidavits as well had been filed. 5. It is averred in W.P.No.11767 of 2006 that the Advocates practicing in Twin Cities are the members of the Petitioner Society and is registered by the competent authority under Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1955 and a certificate of registration was issued on 19.11.1999. The objects of the Society is to improve the economic and social betterment and welfare of its members through the activities of the Society in general and promote and protect the interest of the Advocates in particular through mutual aid, thrift and self help in accordance with the principle of cooperation etc. In achieving the said object, the Society is extending the following benefits to its Member Shareholders: a) Life Insurance Coverage with effect from 15.07.2005 to 14.07.2006 ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- (depending upon the number of Shares held by an individual shareholder). Number of Members Covered –1137. b) Personal Accidental Policy of Rs.1,00,000/- to all shareholders on record as on 09.09.2005 and irrespective of age and number of Shares held by them. c) Mediclaim (Floater) Policy of Rs.25,000/- to all shareholders on record as on 31.12.2005 and his/her nominee. Policy effective up to 09.10.2006. The Policy covers pre-existing ailments also. Number of members Covered – 1412. d) The ID Cards issued by the Society entitles the shareholders to claim discount at all Vijaya Diagnostic Centres. e) The shareholders can collect KAMINENI HOSPITAL privilege cards from Society’s Offices, which entitles shareholders for 20% Discount. f) Shareholders can avail Gold Loans with interest rate of 9% to 11% per annum. g) Shareholders can also avail loans by depositing their Share Certificates. Loan can be availed up to 80% of the face of the Share Certificate. Thus the Petitioner Society had been serving its Members by rendering the said services. 6. It is also stated that in achieving the objects of the Petitioner Society and for better service to its Members, the Petitioner Society during the year 2002 purchased an extent of Ac.10-01 gunta land in Survey No.43 situated at Muneerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for allotment of house sites to its members and got registered eight Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys as Document Nos.9644, 6702, 6760, 6889, 6805, 6989, 7348 and 6804/2002 with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The name of the Petitioner Society was also mutated in the revenue records for the said extent of Ac.10-01 gunta in Survey No.43 of Muneerabad Village under Mutation proceeding Nos.E/4896, E/4893, E/4895, E/4897, E/4894, dated 10.04.2003, E/1609, E/1610, E/1608, dated 05.06.2003 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The Petitioner Society also got registered the sale deeds on 04.03.2006 as Document Nos.5395,5396,5397,5398,5399, 5400,5401 and 5402/2006 with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District for the said land and thus the Petitioner Society is the absolute owner and possessor of the said land. 7. It is further stated that respondent No.1 initially issued a Notification dated 16.04.2005 in Andhra Pradesh Gazette O.R.R. No.73 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the lands total admeasuring Ac.50-29 guntas in Survey Nos.27,28,29,32,33, 36,37,38,40,41,42,43 and 44 of Muneerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for formation of Outer Ring Road. Even though the name of the Petitioner’s Society was mutated in the revenue records during the month of April, 2003 itself, the name of the Petitioner’s Society was not shown in the 4(1) Notification issued by respondent No.1 against the land in Survey No.43. No plan was made available demarcating the acquired lands. The Petitioner Society through the representation dated 24.05.2005 requested the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-IV, Outer Ring Road, HUDA, Hyderabad, to supply a copy of the Plan and also requested to exempt the land from acquisition as the Petitioner Society acquired the land for providing house sites to its members. As copy of the plan was not furnished to the Petitioner’s Society, the Society once again requested through the representation, dated 21.10.2005 for furnishing the copy of plan, but no copy of the plan is made available to the petitioner. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-IV, Outer Ring Road, HUDA, Hyderabad, through the Notices dated 18.01.2006 and 13.03.2006 requested the Petitioner Society to appear in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner could not properly file its objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, as the relevant plan copies were not furnished even after repeated requests. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit- IV, Outer Ring Road, HUDA, Hyderabad, issued notice, dated 22.05.2006 in Form-7 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the Petitioner. 8. It is also avered that respondent No.1 again got issued another notification dated 08.07.2005 in Andhra Pradesh Gazette O.R.R.No.123 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the lands total admeasuring Ac.36-36 guntas in Survey Nos.33, 36,45,46,47,48 and 50 of Munnerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for formation of Outer Ring Road. This Notification was issued by respondent No.1 after considering many complaints/comments from various persons and also after publication of many articles in the daily newspapers on the improper alignment of the Outer Ring Road. There were also complaints of passing of High Tension electricity lines and also the existence of 133 KV heavy electricity Sub-station in the proposed Outer Ring Road covered by the 4(1) Notification dated 16.04.2005. Considering the heavy expenditure for shifting of the electricity Sub-station and also the heavy High Tension lines and also on the complaints of various persons, the Authorities have re-examined the matter on the alignment of Outer Ring Road and after resurvey of the land to keep proper alignment of the Outer Ring Road on the advise of the experts, the Notification dated 08.07.2005 was issued replacing the earlier Notification dated 16.04.2005. 9. It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 to 8 having noticed the enormous increase in prices of the lands at Munnerabad Village and in view of the changes and also after their noticing the publication of the Notification dated 08.07.2005 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette O.R.R. No.123, they had influenced respondent Nos.1 and 2 to act upon the Notification dated 16.04.2005 only and ignored the subsequent Notification dated 08.07.2005 with a view to save their lands in Survey Nos.33,36,45,47,48 and 50 of Muneerabad Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from acquisition, with a view to get more market value for their lands. Under the influence of respondent Nos.3 to 8, respondent No.1 acted malafidly, arbitrarily and illegally issued a declaration dated 20.04.2006 under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette O.R.R.No.64 dated 20.04.2006. In the said declaration, respondent No.1 had ignored the Notification dated 08.07.2005 made under Section 4(1) of the Act and only acted under the earlier Notification dated 16.04.2005. The said action of respondent No.1 is nothing but malafide in acquiring the lands of the Petitioner leaving the lands of respondent Nos.3 to 8 from acquisition. 10. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are acting in arbitrary manner in proceeding with the acquisition of the land of the Petitioner in Survey No.43 of Muneerabad Village under the Notification dated 16.04.2005, ignoring the subsequent Notification dated 08.07.2005. The very alignment of the Outer Ring Road itself was in dispute as respondent Nos.1 and 2 all the time tried to save the lands of respondent Nos.3 to 8 from acquisition enabling them to get higher price for their lands. When the alignment of the Outer Ring Road was changed on the advice of the experts and a Notification was issued on 08.07.2005, there is no necessity to respondent No.1 to go ahead with the earlier Notification dated 16.04.2005 by publishing the present declaration dated 20.04.2006 under Section 6 of the Act. A perusal of the sketch showing the alignment under the Notification dated 16.04.2005 and the Notification dated 08.07.2005 itself will establish the malafide action of respondent No.1. 11. It is also stated that respondent No.1 is now proposing to acquire the land to lay Outer Ring Road of 500 ft. wide. It is surprising to note that when all the National Highways in the Country are not even with a width of 200 ft., which itself is accommodating 6 lines road with foot path, parking areas etc., the acquisition of the land for 500 ft. wide Outer Ring Road by respondent No.1 itself is malafide and all that land with width of 500 ft. is not even necessary for formation of Outer Ring Road. In all the earlier occasions it is proved that the Authorities have acquired more land than the land needed for a public purpose and later on sold the same to the public at much higher rates depriving the payment of real market value to the land owners. In the present case also, it is nothing but obvious that respondent No.1 will sell the land on either sides of the Outer Ring Road at much higher rates. It appears that with that reason only, respondent No.1 is proposing to acquire the land to lay Outer Ring Road with 500 ft. width even though the land with 500 ft. width is not required to lay the Outer Ring Road. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in proposing to acquire land with 500 ft. width for Outer Ring Road is malafide. In such circumstances, the writ petition was filed praying for appropriate relief as aforesaid. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the allegations had been denied and it is stated that the Petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the Notification which was issued under Section 4 (1) on 16.04.2005 and Draft Declaration under Section 6, dated 20.04.2006. The notification was issued for the purpose of acquisition of lands for the formation of Outer Ring Road at Muneerabad Village and the procedure under the Act had been strictly followed in this acquisition of land. The following are the various dates of publication as under Section 4 (1):- 1. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No.73, dated: 16.04.2005. 2. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No. 123, dated: 08.07.2005 3. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No.190, dated: 13.12.2005. 13. Further it is stated that with regard to the Notification issued on 16.04.2005, six objection petitions were received by the Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-IV. Accordingly, the notices in Form No.3 were issued by him to the concerned petitioners on 02.05.2005 while fixing the date for 5-A enquiry on 14.06.2005 at 03:00 PM in the office of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Unit-IV, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The 5-A enquiry was not conducted by him on the above said date as he was with other works and adjourned the enquiry. Finally, the 5-A enquiry was conducted and concluded by him on 27.03.2006 and they had filed written objection. The objection petition filed by the objectors along with 5-A enquiry report was forwarded by him to this office for passing of suitable orders under Section 5-A of the Act. Subsequently, the Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act to an extent of Ac.39-05 guntas in Survey Nos.27,28,29,32,37,38,40,41,43 and 44 were submitted by him to this office for approval. 14. With regard to the notification issued on 08.07.2005, it is stated that only six applications were received by the Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-IV. Accordingly, the notices in Form No.3 were issued by him to the concerned petitioners while fixing the date on 03.11.2005 for 5-A enquiry. They appeared and requested to give another date of hearing. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer had given several adjournments. Finally, the 5-A enquiry was conducted and concluded by him on 28.06.2006 and recorded their deposition. The 5-A enquiry report along with the objections had been forwarded to this office for passing of suitable orders. The Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act to an extent of Ac.5-10 guntas in Sy.Nos.33,36 and 47 were submitted by him to this office for approval. 15. It is further stated that with regard to the notification issued on 13.12.2005, no objection petitions were filed. As such the question of conducting 5-A enquiry does not arise. The Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.42 were submitted by him to this office for approval. Draft Declaration: 1. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No. 64, dated 20.04.2006 2. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No. 95, dated 12.07.2006 3. A.P. Gazette O.R.R. No. 96, dated 12.07.2006. 16. It is also stated that the land bearing Sy.Nos.27,28,29,32, 33,36,37,38,40,41,42,43 and 44 admeasuring Ac.50-29 guntas had been notified in ordinary clause and got published in A.P. Gazette O.R.R.No.73, dated 16.04.2005. The name of the writ petitioner was not notified in the said notification as the revenue records pertaining to Muneerabad Village for the year 2003 is not made available in this office. The names of the original pattadars were mentioned in the notification based on the revenue record of Muneerabad Village for the year 2001 – 2002. In response to the representation made by B. Shanker, Secretary, the Advocates Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, a copy of the alignment map was supplied by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Unit-V to him. It is stated that notified person shall file objection petition within 30 days from the date of publication of 4(1) notification. Six objection petitions were received by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Unit-V. Accordingly, the notices under Section 5-A of the Act in Form No.3 had been issued on 02.05.2005 while fixing the date for 5-A enquiry on 14.06.2005 at 03:00 PM in the office of the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Unit-IV, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The 5-A enquiry was not conducted on the above said date as the Land Acquisition Officer was with other works and adjourned the enquiry. Finally, the 5-A enquiry was conducted on 27.03.2006 and they had filed written objection requesting to furnish a copy of the plan showing the portion of the land under acquisition in survey No.43 of Muneerabad Village of Medchal Mandal for making necessary objections. Their Society acquired the land for providing house sites to the members of the Society will be put to huge loss and also Societies developmental activities, as such their land be exempted from the acquisition or alternative land be provided. The 5-A enquiry report along with the remarks of the Land Acquisition Officer on each objection had been submitted by him to the Project Director and Special Collector on 03.04.2006. Sri C.V.Narayana Rao, Advocate on behalf of the Society had appeared and not given any deposition and written application. The request of the petitioner with regard to payment of compensation will be considered at the time of Award enquiry and suitable compensation will be paid soon after passing of the Award. Subsequently, the proposals under Section 6 in respect of Sy.Nos.27,28,29,32,37,38,40,41,43 and 44 admeasuring Ac.39-05 guntas were submitted to the Project Director and Special Collector, Land Acquisition, ORRP vide this office Lr.No.20/2005, dated 20.04.2006, which had been approved by the Project Director and Special Collector vide Proc.No.D/ORR/102/2005, dated 20.04.2006 and got published in A.P. Gazettee O.R.R. No.64, dated 20.04.2006. It was also published in two daily News papers i.e., “The New Indian Express” and “Andhra Prabha”, dated 02.05.2006 respectively. Subsequently, the lands had got demarcated by the Deputy Inspector of Survey of this office according to which there is variation of area in Sy.Nos.27,28,29,32,37,38,43 and 44 are found. The Amendment to the Draft Declaration was issued and got published in A.P. Gazette O.R.R.No.90, dated 29.06.2006. Further it is stated that the award enquiry notices in Form Nos.6 and 7 were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-V to the concerned notified pattadars and got served on them. 17. It is further stated that due to change of width from 75 to 150 meters, additional lands for Sy.Nos.33, 36,45,46,47,48 and 50 are essentially required for formation of Outer Ring Road in addition to the lands, which were already notified. The allegation of the petitioner that the notification issued on 08.07.2005 by replacing the earlier notification, dated 16.04.2005, is not correct. Both the notifications are in existence, which were issued for formation of Outer Ring Road. 18. It is also avered that another notification under Section 4(1) for Sy.Nos.33,36,45,46,47,48 and 50 admeasuring Ac.36-36 guntas had been notified and got published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.123, dated 08.07.2005. As per S.D. record the Draft Declaration for Sy.Nos.33,36,47 admeasuring Ac.5-10 guntas had been approved and got published in the A.P. Gazette ORR No.95, dated 12.07.2006 and the rest of the Sy.Nos.36,45,46 and 48 notified earlier in the D.N. are not coming under Outer Ring Road alignment. There was no influence made on respondent Nos.1 and 2 to act upon the notification dated 16.04.2005 and ignore the subsequent notification, dated 08.07.2005 with a view to save their lands is not correct. Further it is stated that the lands of respondent Nos.3 to 8 in Sy.Nos.42,36 and 47 are also effected under ORR alignment and their lands had also been published in A.P. Gazette ORR No.96, dated 12.07.2006. The allegation made by the writ petitioner is not correct and far from the truth. Hence, the allegation at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 8 that the alignment said to be changed is not correct which is now straight line. There is no malafide intention in making the realignment. 19. It is further stated that under A.P. Gazette O.R.R.No.64, dated 20.04.2006 the land to the extent of Ac.7-16 guntas in Sy.No.43 had been issued. After scrutiny of the S.D. record, the balance area Ac.2-25 guntas remains with the pattadar. The plan of the land is made available in the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Office, Unit-V and whenever required the pattadars may come and verify the plan of the land. The writ petitioner came to this office and verified the plan, which is available in the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Unit-V. The allegation made by the writ petitioner is not correct. 20. It is also stated that while disposing of the W.A.No.466 of 2006, dated 28.04.2006, it was observed that “While disposing of the appeal, we deem it necessary to emphasize the imperative need of vigilance on the part of the public authorities, who have been entrusted with the task of implementing what is considered as one of the most important projects for the city of Hyderabad. This city has been inviting many thousand crores of investment from all over the country and abroad. Needless to say that availability of sound infrastructure is sine qua non for attracting investment. We can take notice of the chaotic conditions in relation to traffic prevailing in another advanced city of country i.e., Bangalore which prompted the Central cabinet to take a decision to immediately approve the project for metro rail and Bangalore-Mysore Highway. These projects are of immense public importance and any impediment by the Executive apparatus of the state in implementation of these projects must be viewed with grave adversity. Even judicial intervention in such matters has to be made with great caution and circumspection. The Courts cannot loose sight of the fact that delay in implementation of public-oriented project adds to the huge cost in its execution. Even a single day’s delay enhances the cost by few crores of rupees, which has naturally to be born by the public at large.” 21. It is stated that the allegation made with regard to the change of alignment is not correct. The petitioner had attributed malafides against him, which are not correct, and he denied the allegation levelled against him, which was contrary to the record. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Special Collector to perform the duties under the Act. Even assuming there is a change of alignment, the petitioner cannot challenge the decision of the technical experts in forming the Outer Ring Road. The Hon’ble Division Bench in W.P.No.23611 of 2001, dated 01.11.2001 held as follows. “Having heard the learned the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the question as to how and in what manner a road should be laid is a matter of policy, which is within the exclusive domain of the state. The court, even if a section of public would suffer inconvenience, cannot interfere in the matter. It may be for the concerned authorities to consider the matter on its own merits. 22. It is stated that other respondents also filed the counter affidavits. 23. Likewise, in W.P.No.10053 of 2009, similar averments were made as in the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.No.11767 of 2006 had been made. 24. It is also stated that respondent No.3 was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with enquiry and passing of awards. The petitioner had filed its claim petition before respondent No.3 praying for award of compensation at the prevailing market value. Respondent No.3 had not considered the petitioner’s claim petition and had chosen to make reference under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication of the claims of all the concerned. Respondent No.3 though vested power under the said Act to adjudicate the title, he had failed to consider and pass award in favour of the interested persons and arbitrarily chosen to refer all the claims of the interested persons by way of reference under Section 30 of the Act. Respondent No.3 passed the award No.LA/Unit- V/20/ORR on 04.05.2008 even without conducting enquiry and serving notices on the interested persons including the Petitioner Society and the said Award was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Respondent No.3 had not called the Petitioner’s Society for production of the original sale deeds and erroneously stated that the Petitioner Society had failed to produce the originals for verification of the title and in a summary way ordered for reference under Section 30 and 31 of the Act. 25. Further the filing of W.P.No.11767 of 2006 had also been referred to. It is stated that a reading of the order makes it clear