ORDER
1. Petitioners are the owners of lands to the extent of Acs. 17-13 gunias of Sy. Nos. 20, 57 and 58, situated at Kanchan Bagh Mandal, Charminar District, Hyderabad. It is stated that the Union of India, first respondent herein, took over the said lands for public purpose and possession thereof was taken on 19-2-1979 on lease under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1952’. The first respondent paid the rents upto 1984. On 22-1-1985, the Collector, Hyderabad District, third respondent herein, issued notice in Form-J, catling upon the petitioners to show-cause, within fifteen days, as to why the property in question cannot be acquired by the first respondent, since the first
respondent intended to acquire the lands in question in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952. The petitioners did not object to the acquisition of the lands and, therefore, a notification was issued by the third respon-dent under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952, acquiring the lands through Proceedings No. 3250 of 1994 dated 2-3-1985. Since the date of issuance of notice bearing No. 3250 of 1984, dated 2-3-1985, it is stated, no rents have also been paid.
2. Pursuant to the issuance of notice dated 2-3-1985, the second respondent herein through G.O.Ms. No. 153dated 5-2-1991, accorded permission to acquire the lands in question under the Land Acquisition Act, by granting relaxation from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1976’.
3. While the matter stood thus, the first and fourth respondents again referred the matter to the second respondent seeding notification of G.O.Ms. No. 153, dated 5-2-1991, on the ground that when once the property is acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, contemplating payment of compensation under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is unwarranted.
4. The fact remains that, the lands in question have originally requisitioned by the first respondent in the year 1979 for public purpose. It is also a fact that the first respondent intended to acquire the lands and, therefore, the third respondent issued notice dated 22-1-1985 inviting objections from the petitioners for such acquisition. The petitioners had not objected for such acquisition by the first respondent. Therefore, the third respondent issued another notice dated 2-3-1985, stating that the first respondent having satisfied itself acquired the lands in question.
5. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be that though the lands are originally requisitioned for public purpose on payment of certain amount towards rent, agreed to between the petitioners and the first respondent, permanent structures have been raised
by the first respondent. Later on, the first respondent, in its wisdom, thought to acquire the lands once for all, so that the property could be used by the first respondent permanently. Though the third respondent through notice dated 2-3-1985 intimated the petitioners that the first respondent having satisfied itself acquired the property in question, yet the first respondent has not bothered to pay the compensation to the petitioners, who are the owners of the property. It is in the year 1992, when the petitioners realised that the first respondent is trying to insist the second respondent to modify the G.O.Ms. No. 153, dated 5-2-1991, they approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking redressal of their grievance.
6. Mr. Habeeb Ansari, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Om Prakash Misra, counsel for the petitioners, primarily contended that though the first respondent had acquired the lands way back in 1985, no compensation has been paid to them till today. He further contends that when the second respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 153, dated 5-2-1991, whereby determination of compensation should be only under the Land Acqusition Provisions, the first respondent referred the matter seeking notification of the said G.O. Therefore, such an action of the first respondent cannot be sustained. He also contends that though the notification acquiring the lands is of the year 1985, by virtue of which the land in question belonging to the petitioners had vested in the first respondent, the petilioners have not been paid any compensation so far, nor any rents were paid after
1984. It is at this point of time, the first respondent is preparing to determine the compensation basing on the notification of the year 1985, and if that is allowed, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners. Inasmuch as when the notification of the year
1985, there is no justification for the first respondent in denying the compensation to these petitioners for all these years. It is contended, the notice Dt/-2-3-1985 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside on the ground of laches.
7. Mr. Sree Ramulu, counsel representing
Shri P. Innayya Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the respondents 1 and 4. on the other hand contends that, the lands have been acquired by the Government and as such i( vest with the Government. When once the lands vest with the Government, the petitioners are not entitled for any rents. The fact of petitioners’ entitlement for compensation is not denied. He further contends that the petitioners have not raised any grievance against delay in determining the compensation and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to agitate on this aspect now. He further submits that the first respondent is now contemplating to proceed with the question of determining the compensation and, therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition.
8. What looks to me is that the lands in question have been originally taken by the first respondent on lease under the Act of 1952. Till the year 1984 the first respondent was paying the rents. In the year 1985, the first respondent, by invoking Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952, intended to acquire the said land. Pursuant to which, the third respondent issued a notice to the petitioners herein calling upon them to show-cause as to why the lands cannot be acquired, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 22-1-1985. After that notice, another notice dated 2-3-1985, has been issued by the third respondent, intimating the petitioners about the acquisition of the lands by the first respondent in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952.
9. Section 8 of the Act of 1952 contemplates, when once the first respondent acquires the lands, for fixing compensation, it shall appoinl an arbitrator, who has to issue necessary notice to the concerned parties, hear their claims and decide the matter while fixing the compensation. Nothing is placed before me to say, that the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act of 1952 has been followed. The argument that the petitioners have not made any whisper till this day seeking compensation. I am afraid, cannot be accepted. It is not open to the “State” to say that the petitioners have kept quiet for such a long time, and not open to make out grievance against such delay. In the
counter, the first respondent asserts that the lands have been acquired. When it is asserted that the lands have been acquired, implication is that the acquisition should necessarily be followed by payment of compensation. In this case, the respondents are trying to throw blames on the petitioners, whose lands have been acquired. After all, it is to be remembered that, the respondents are the State and the petitioners are the citizens of the State.
10. Article 300A of the Constitution of India under Chapter ‘Right to property’, required that no person should be deprived of his property without the authority of law that is to say, that necessarily the procedure has to be followed. In this case though the necessary procedure as to issuance of notification under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952 has been followed, but the necessary implication of determining the compensation and payment of compensation has been followed. The narration of facts of this case makes it clear that mere acquiring the property by issuing notification, without payment of compensation cannot be, by no stretch of imagination, construed as property being acquired and vests in the first respondent. If the first respondent makes a claim that the property in question is acquired and vests in it, in my view, such claim is illegal as long as the petitioners are not paid the necessary compensation which they are entitled to legally. Denying the citizen his property would be amounting to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. State cannot claim the privilege of denying its citizens their valuable property rights.
11. Even under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provisions are contemplated fixing certain time for notification, calling for objections and passing award. The intention seems to be that when a citizen’s property is acquired, such a citizen is entitled to have reasonable compensation within a reasonable time. Therefore, a time bound programme has been fixed. As far as the Act of 1952 is concerned, though no time bound programme is contemplated under the Act of 1952, it cannot be said that the Act of 1952 gives free-hand to the respondents to take
their own time and decide the compensation leisurely. Once the third respondent issues notification under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1952 and acquires the lands it is obligatory on his part to follow necessary further procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act of 1952, so that the party, whose lands are acquired, could get the compensation within a reasonable time. In the instant case, though the lands in question have been acquired on 2-3-1985, so far no compensation is paid or the value has been determined and kept in deposits. In the absence of passing of an award while determinig the compensation, it is not permissible to say that the lands have been acquired and such lands vest in Government legally.
12. Inaction of the first respondent in not paying the compensation even after nine years acquisition of the lands, amounts to depriving a citizen his valuable property without any authority and, therefore, such an action amount to infringment of right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Had the respondents, immediately, after the acquisition of the lands in question followed the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act of 1952, determined the compensation and paid the same to the petitioners, the petitioners could have made use of that money by investing in several sources, so that they could have benefited. The only reason, on behalf of the first respondent, seems to be that the matter was referred to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority for permission and, therefore, there is delay. 1 am afraid, I cannot accept this reasoning. The permission of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority would not come in any way in determining the compensation that is to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners.
13. Shri Habeeb Ansari counsel representing the counsel for the petitioners, has taken me to few decisions of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court by contending that where there is delay on the part of the respondents in awarding compensation, the acquisition proceedings have be quashed. I am entirely in agreement with the submission of Habeeb Ansari. There cannot be any second opinion as far as this aspect is concerned. The lands were acquired in the
year 1985. We are now in the year 1994. Still the petitioners have to see the money that they are entitled to get. Laches on the part of the respondents in denying the compensation to the petitioners, whose lands have been acquired on 2-3-1985 by issuing notification to that effect is sufficient ground to set aside the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, proceedings dated 2-3-1985 issued by the third respondent, acquiring the lands of the petitioners are set aside.
14. However, it is made clear that if the respondents are so desirous of acquiring the lands in question, they may do so by initiating fresh proceedings as per the provisions of the Act of 1952. The entire acquisition proceedings including that of payment of compensation to the petitioners shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents, while determining the compensation shall hear the case of the petitioners and shall also consider the documents, if any, filed, and determine the compensation while giving opportunity to participate in such proceedings.
15. Since I have set aside the acquisition proceedings dated 2-3-1985 issued by the third respondent, I am not inclined to go into the other aspect of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.
16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
17. Petition allowed.
