DEEPTISRI COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions, involving common point are disposed off by a common judgment. The notification dated : 18-10-1984 issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is sought to be certiorarised on various grounds.

(2.) Deeptisri Co-operative House Building Society Limited is the petitioner in W P No. 10085 of 1985; It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner- Society purchased an extent of Ac. 149 out of various survey numbers under different registered sale deeds dated 7-7-1983 etc-, and thereafter spent huge amounts to make the lands suitable for house plots. The total membership of the petitioner Society is said to be 1436 comprising mostly employees of State and Central sectors and other individuals who have no residential sites of their own. Out of the said area. 511 plots were already registered in favour of the members and they have made arrangements for constructing houses of their own after obtaining the requisite financial assistance. While so. a notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is said to have been published on 18-10-1984 acquiring various survey numbers comprising an extent of Ac. 827.25 guntas situated at Maipur village Rajendranagar Taluk, Rangareddy district. It is further averred by the petitioner Society that before purchasing these lands, the Society had written a letter to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority enquiring whether these lands are under acquisition by them, and by their letter No. B/5094/82, dated: 5-9-1982 it was replied that there was no proposal for acquisition of these lands. It is then agreements of sale were entered into. Thereafter these lands were sought to be acquired by the H U D A. It is further alleged that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have not been duly followed and therefore the proceedings initiated under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act are vitiated and consequently the notification must be quashed.

(3.) One of the contentions was that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality as required under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, especially as amended by the Central Legislature by Act 68 of 1984 under which it is mandatory that the notification must also be published in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality.