R DASHRATH MOHAN LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER MCH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Rai Chander Mohan Lal, father of the petitioners herein, was the pattedar of Ac. 10-20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.58, 59 and 60 of old Yousufguda Village, Bapunagar, situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein. According to the Town Survey, it is in Ward No.7, Block 1. The 1st respondent published a notification in the Gazette dated 10-9-1987 under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Lands) Act 1956 (Tor short 'the Act'), declaring the said land as slum. This was followed by a '-Notice calling upon the owner of the land to show-cause as to why it should not be acquired. The objections raised on behalf of the father of the petitioners did not appeal to the 1st respondent. Ultimately, a notification under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 21-2-1988. Thereby the land in the said survey numbers admeasuring an extent of 49322 sq.yards stood vested in the Government. The father of the petitioners died on 2-12-1995. The complaint of the petitioners is that though about 1 1/2 decade has elapsed, they have not been paid compensation as provided for under the Act.

(2.) Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondents. All the respondents admit the factum of the land of the petitioners having been notified, acquired and vested in the Government, under the provisions of the Act. So far as the payment of compensation is concerned, no definite plea as such is taken by any of the respondents. On behalf of Respondent No1, it is contended that except exercising the power to issue notifications under the delegated authority, he did not incur any liability under the Act. The 3rd respondent contends that the land has since been developed and that the Government of A.P., had issued Memo dated 11-2-1997, approving a list of 387 slums in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, for deletion. He claims to have submitted proposals to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, for fixing the market value and payment of the compensation. Proposals are said to be under consideration. The 2nd respondent has not taken any definite stand in the matter.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the land has been acquired under the Act and stood vested in the Government, the respondents are under obligation to pay the compensation as provided for under the Act. He submits that non-payment of compensation amounts to unlawful assumption of the possession of the land by the respondents.