HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, R.D.O., HYDERABAD EAST DIVISION, R.R.DISTRICT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This appeal by the unsuccessful petitioners is from the judgment of a learned single judge, Rama Swamy , ,j. (as he then was) in W.P.NO.11058/87 dismissing the writ petition challenging the validity of a reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short L.A.Act). An extent of Ac.29-18 guntas of land covered by S.Nos.52/2, 56/2, 57 and 58 at Peerzadiguda, Uppal Mandal in Rangareddy District belonging to the petitioners was acquired for construction of a bus stand by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the L.A.Act was issued on 29-3-79. The enquiry under Sec. 5-A was completed on 26-6-79: as possession was not taken within three months from Sec.4 (1) notification, Sec.5-A enquiry had to be resorted to under Section 17 (5) (b). The declaration under Sec.6 was published on 21-1-82 but possession was taken on 4-7-79 pursuant to a letter of consent issued by appellants 1 and 2 agreeing for the acquisition provided the compensation is paid as per the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 23-9-86. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2554, Revenue dated 22-9-86 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the entire amount of compensation into court pending finalisation of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Ceiling Act). In compliance with the aforesaid order of the Government, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference tp Civil Court under Section 30 of the L.A.Act and deposited into court the entire amount to Rs. 13, 18, 717-49 determined as compensation. Challenging the same the owners of the land filed the writ petition from out of which the present appeal arises.
(2.)The land is question is situate in Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and is included in the Master plan with the specification that it is intended for a purpose other than agriculture.
(3.)Before the learned single judge it was contended that as there is no dispute either in regard to the title or entitlement to receive compensation the reference to civil court under Sec. 30 was illegal. The consequence of possession being taken on 4-7-79 is that the land was vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances under Sec. 17 (1) of the L.A.Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.