THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19862 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners own lands admeasuring 150 and 183 square yards in premises bearing Nos.8-1-40/186 and 8-1-40/12 respectively of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. The premises abut a road between Quli Qutubshah Tombs and old Bombay road. On 03.08.2000, the Commissioner of the Municpal Corporation, Hyderabad, 4th respondent herein addressed a letter to the petitioners stating that the premises would be affected in the widening of the road and requested them to hand over the possession. On their part, the petitioners gave consent for handing over the possession but requested that the compensation be paid. The road was laid thereafter. The grievance of the petitioners is that though several years have elapsed, they have not been paid compensation. The 5th respondent i.e., the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad filed counter affidavit. It is stated that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 11.04.2002 proposing to acquire the various properties including the premises referred to above. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been held and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 09.07.2002. It is stated that the premises owned by the petitioners are parts of land in Survey Nos.240, 241 and 242 of Shaikpet Village, corresponding to T.S.Nos.16/1 and 2, and that the owner thereof, Sri Krishnoji, filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’). It is also stated that an order dated 07.08.1997 was passed under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act to the effect that the lands held by him are in excess of the ceiling limits and that an appeal filed by the declarant is pending. According to the 5th respondent, the necessity for passing the award did not arise, since the land is found to be in excess of ceiling limits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In addition to the steps taken by the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, such as publication of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, conducting of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act etc., the 4th respondent has addressed a letter to the petitioners requiring them to hand over the possession. It ultimately emerged that the possession of the properties of the petitioners were taken and road was laid upon them. Once the procedure under the Act was invoked, it ought to have entailed in passing of the award. However, on finding that the entire land was declared as surplus of ceiling limits and thereby vested in the Government, the 5th respondent did not pass any award. An important aspect that needs to be taken into account is that the ULC Act has since been repealed with effect from 27.03.2008, in its operation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The repealing Act makes it clear that except where the land vested in the Government and possession thereof was taken, all the pending proceedings under the Act would lapse. In case, the land covered by the declaration submitted by Krishnoji, particularly the one which was purchased by the petitioners, did not vest in the Government, by the date of repeal, the necessity arises for the 5th respondent to pass award. In such an event, the claim of the petitioners shall be considered and an award must be passed. If there are no other rival claimants, the compensation deserves to be paid to them. On the other hand, if there exist any rival claims, the matter has to be referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, after the award is passed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that (a) the 5th respondent shall verify from the office of the Special Officer ad competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad as to whether the land which is the subject matter of the declaration submitted by Krishnoji being C.C.No.E1/6933/76 in relation to land in Survey Nos.240 to 242 of Shaikpet Village and in particular, the properties purchased by the petitioners has vested in the Government by the time the U.L.C. Act was repealed. It shall also be open to the petitioners to obtain necessary information in this regard and make it available to the 5th respondent; (b) If it emerges that the land did not vest in the Government, the 5th respondent shall proceed to pass an award in respect of the lands that are subject matter of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (c) If the petitioners alone are the claimants vis-à-vis the property, they shall be paid compensation. On the other hand, if there exist any rival claims, the matter shall be referred to civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19862 of 2003 Date: 10.06.2010 JSU