N.MADHAVI Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Smt. D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for the HMDA.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 575 Square Yards in Sy.No.43 to 47 and 49 Part, situated at Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same through registered sale deed No.9688/2000 dtd. 25/10/2000. While it being so, the respondent No.2 issued Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') on 28/2/2005 proposing to acquire certain lands at Madhapur for formation of road. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued Draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act 25/3/2006 mentioning the Survey No.43, however, the said survey number was not mentioned in the earlier Notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act. On coming to know that the part of the subject house of the petitioner going to be affected in the widening of the road, the petitioner filed a representation along with the copy of sale deed before the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer issued letter on 6/2/2008 stating that the land in Sy.No.43, to an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas is notified for the purpose of acquisition for formation of the road from Madhapur Hitech City to Western side of Durgam Chervu Road and the land in Sy.No.43 has been declared as surplus and the case at the stage of 10 (6), and asked to submit the required document on or before 14/3/2008. Thereafter, Award has been passed on 25/3/2008, without there being any reference of amendment to 4(1) of the Act.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel further submits that Land Acquisition Officer issued notice of Award in Form-9 under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act, 1894 to the petitioner stating that award has been passed and part area of in Sy.No.43 is covered under the park, road, part was declared as surplus and hence no compensation was awarded. As the subject property was notified under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner had no occasion to participate in the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act and consequent to the draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is contrary to the procedure and Nil Award in respect of the subject property is arbitrary and illegal and requested this Court to set aside the same by allowing the Writ Petition.