SHAHEEN BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions, the parties are common, and the subject-matter is inter-related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) An extent of Ac. 19.19 guntas of land owned by the Petitioners in Sy. No. 41/2/1 of Kanchanbagh Revenue Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District was requisitioned by the Union of India, Ministry of Defence, the 1st Respondent herein, in the year 1978, in exercise of power under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (for short 'the RAIP Act'). Lands belongs to certain others were also acquired. Uncertainty prevailed, as to whether the Respondents ought to have invoked the provisions of the RAIP Act, or those, of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5200 of 1992 and batch, and resultant Writ Appeals, the Respondents ultimately have chosen to invoke the provisions of the RAIP Act.

(3.) A notification under Section 7(1) of the RAIP Act was issued on 11-07-2009.W.P. No. 22780 of 2009 was filed by the Petitioners, challenging the said notification. This Court refused to interfere with the notification, but disposed of the writ petition, directing that the proceedings initiated through the notification be concluded within a period of six months. Though with some delay, the District Collector, who is conferred with the power under the RAIP Act, passed an order dated 11-07-2009, awarding the compensation. The Petitioners filed W.P. No. 22776 of 2009. The writ petitjon was disposed of, directing the 1st Respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 24-07-2009, made by the Petitioners for appointment of an Arbitrator, within a period of three months.W.P. No. 4060 of 2011 is filed for a declaration that the inaction on the part of the 1st Respondent to appoint Arbitrator, as directed by this Court, and not arranging for determination of just and proper compensation, is illegal and arbitrary.