GAJBINKAR ARJUN Vs. SIDDIPET MUNICIPALITY REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to take steps to raise commercial complex on the land admeasuring ac. 00. 29 guntas and 40 square yards comprised in Sy. No. 1825 of Siddipet Town, medak District, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and paying compensation to the petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of India. The petitioners also sought for grant of consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows: an extent of Ac. 00. 29 guntas 40 square yards in Sy. No. 1825 of Siddipet Town has been in possession of respondent No. 1 -Municipality (for short, 'the Municipality' ). The petitioners claim to have entered into an agreement of sale with Sri Gattupalli bhadraiah and Sri Gattupalli Shankaraiah, who are the sons of Gattupalli Nagamallaiah, the original owner of the land, on 20. 10. 1990. They further averred that the said vendors filed Writ Petition 3164 of 1991 for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings for payment of compensation to them and that as they already executed the agreement of sale and colluded with the municipality, they are not taking interest in the said litigation. A reference to resolution passed by the municipality in the year 1953 and case no. 1/19/1953 is made to show that the land was a private property belonging to the vendors of the petitioner under the alleged agreement of sale. It is further averred that on 30. 12. 1996, the municipality passed resolution to construct commercial complex and that if the same is constructed the third party rights will creep in. With these averments, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Chairman of the Municipality, respondent No. 2, filed a counter-affidavit in which he questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain this writ petition. He claimed that the Municipality is the absolute owner of the said land and that it not being a party to the agreement of sale, the same is not binding on it. He has further averred that the petitioners can only seek specific performance of the said agreement if they so choose and they cannot maintain this writ petition. It is also averred that the municipality, which was formed in the year 1950, developed the said land into municipal park in the year 1951 and since then it is in possession of the property over which no one has claimed any right. It is also averred that Gattupalli Bhadraiah and Gattupalli shankaraiah filed Writ Petition No. 3164 of 1991 against the Municipality for a direction to it to initiate proceedings under the Act for payment of compensation and that later they filed affidavit on 11. 07. 1995 before the municipal Council, Siddipet declaring that the said land belongs to the Municipality and that they were also withdrawing the said writ petition.