TRINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in insisting on execution of a registered gift deed, surrendering an extent of 711.83 Sq. Mtrs., free of cost in Sy.No.58/A/1, situated at Choudarypally Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dt.29/9/2020 in File No.031397/SMD/NOC/U6/HMDA/ 05122019, as a condition precedent for granting NOC for establishment of proposed petrol pump sanctioned by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was allotted a petrol pump by respondents 4 and 5 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions such as identifying suitable land, conversion under NALA Act, payment of Rs.7,58,696.00 towards development charges to the 1st respondent. The petitioner made the payment and also identified the land in Sy.No.58/A/1 on Nagarjunasagar Highway, within the distance specified as suitable and it was approved by the 5th respondent. The petitioner obtained the said land under registered lease deed dt.27/12/2018 vide Document No.27820/2018 for a duration of 21 years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 to the landholder after agreeing for the monthly rent of Rs.18,000.00. Though the business was yet to commence, the petitioner started paying monthly rent to the lessor. In order to get NOC from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through its impugned letter dt.29/9/2020 vide Clause No.3 thereof had called upon the petitioner to surrender an extent of 711.83 Sq. Mtrs., of land adjacent to the main road that too for free of cost. These proceedings dt.29/9/2020 are challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay B. Paropkari, that the surrender by way of gift is sought for by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the existing highway is proposed to be widened from 100 feet to 200 feet in future. It is submitted that if the land of a private person is required for public purpose, the respondents would have to follow the provisions of the GHMC Act or Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but a citizen cannot be deprived of his rights in property by imposing such an arbitrary conditions for granting NOC. Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner is only a lessee and therefore he cannot execute a registered gift deed surrendering the extent of 711.83 Sq. Mtrs., land of the lessor in favour of the respondents and therefore such a demand by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.