the Government of Andhra Pradesh has acquired vast extents of land lying in several villages of Medak District and erstwhile Hyderabad District for establishing the Air Force Academy. Out of that, only certain extents of land has been securely fenced and the Air Force Academy started carrying on its training and other related activities. Since large tracts of an extent of Ac.1,492-16 gts of land was lying outside the secure fence, so put up by AFA the petitioners and others like them have gained a wrong impression that those lands have not been acquired and hence, they were not fenced by Air Force Academy. The fact remains that the entire extent of land of Ac.1,492-16 gts lying outside the secure fence of AFA also stood acquired long time back and compensation was paid pursuant to the award passed long years ago. The claims made by the petitioners and similarly placed persons concerning the land forming part of this Ac.1492-16 gts is a baseless, invalid and untruthful claim. No question of acquisition of these lands all over again would hence, arise. Consequently, no compensation whatsoever is liable to be paid. The Collector and District Magistrate of Medak at Sanga Reddy, the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy and the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District shall not entertain any claims for payment of compensation in that regard to the lands acquired for establishing the Air Force Academy at Dindigul. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana and the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department are alone competent to entertain any such claims and process them, in case justifiable material is produced before them and the said information shall be first shared by them with the Defence Estate Office, Secunderabad, the Director, Indian Air Force Academy, Dindigul and the Director, Research Centre, Imarat, Defence Research and Development Organization, Hyderabad. Lest, fraudulent claims will spring up dime a dozen every day and the State Government will be taken for a ride by such tricksters. The Collector and District Magistrate, Sanga Reddy with whom a sum of Rs.7.20 crores was deposited by the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad shall immediately return the said amount to the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, who shall retain with him the said money for a period of three years from the date it was so refunded. During the three year period, if any, information for payment of compensation is received by him from the CCLA and or the Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Telangana, appropriately money can be made available. After the expiry of the three years period, the money shall be transferred back to the Ministry of Defence and or as per their instructions the same may be utilized. Since the claims made by the petitioners are found to be untruthful claims, it is only appropriate that each one of them shall pay costs of Rs.1,500/- with the Registrar (Judicial), for which purpose 30 days time is granted. Upon such deposit being made, the costs shall be apportioned in equal measure between the Collector and District Magistrate, Sanga Reddy and the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, to defray a small portion of the expenditure incurred by them in resisting these cases. Accordingly, all these four writ petitions stand dismissed with costs to the extent indicated supra. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending shall also stand dismissed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT PETITION NOs. 32743 OF 2014    

31-03-2015

Smt. B. Balamma W/o Late Begari Pedda Sailu R/o Dacharam Village, Jinnaram  
Mandal Medak District.Petitioner

The State of Telangana   Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department,
Secretariat,Hyderabad-500 004 and 3 others.Respondents  

Counsel for the petitioners :  M/s C.M.R. Velu & V. Sriprakash

Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Revenue (TG)
                              2. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Assistant Solicitor
General
       
<GIST:


>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT PETITION NOs. 32743, 33649, 33650 AND    
33651 OF 2014

COMMON ORDER:    

        All these four writ petitions raise common contentions
against the respondents who are common in all the four cases. The
petitioners seek identical relief of a declaration that the action of
the respondents in taking over the land of the petitioners of varying
extents situate in Dacharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak
District, without following the due process of law as arbitrary,
illegal, unjust and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and they also sought for a consequential direction to the
respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in each case as
per the market value.
        The petitioner in W.P.No.32743 of 2014 contends that her
husband Late Sri Begari Pedda Sailu owned and possessed land of
an extent of Ac.2-24 gts situate in Sy.Nos.64,72,82 and 118 in
Dacharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District.  It is her
further case that her husband died on 26.04.2014 and hence she
has succeeded to her estate. It is her case that the land in question
was lying in close proximity to the campus of Air Force Academy,
Dindigul, Hyderabad, but however, her husband has carried on
agricultural operations in the land. While so, sometime during the
year 2008 the Air Force Academy allocated part of their land to the
fourth respondent, Defence Research and Development
Organization and that the fourth respondent started digging the
land for construction of a runway and the excavated earth was
dumped at the land of the petitioner rendering it useless for
carrying on agricultural operations. It was further asserted by the
petitioner that the defence personnel are not allowing the petitioner
to approach her land. However, in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed
in support of this writ petition, it is asserted as under:

.Further there is a runway close to my land,
the question of myself going there or cultivating
the land does not arise. The Respondents have
infact grabbed my land without following the
due process of law
       
        The petitioner in W.P.No.33649 of 2014 would assert that he
owns land of an extent of Ac.3-19 gts situate in Sy.Nos.156, 75,
114 & 118 of Dacharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District.
It is his case that after the death of his father, he has succeeded to
his estate. Rest of the pleadings set up by this petitioner including
the assertion of the earlier writ petitioner quoted supra were
identical.
        The petitioner in W.P.No.33650 of 2014 has asserted that he
owns and possesses land admeasuring Ac.0-11 gts situate in
Sy.No 114 of Dacharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District,
which he had succeeded to after the demise of his father. What all
has been stated in the rest of the affidavit is verbatim the same as
was set out in W.P.No.32743 of 2014.
        Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.33651 of 2014 has
asserted that he was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring
Ac.0-29 gts situate in Sy.No.156 and 75 of Dacharam Village,
Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District.  He had succeeded to the said
land after the death of his father. Verbatim the same pleas which
have been set up in W.P.No.32743 of 2014 have been repeated.
        On behalf of the fourth respondent-Director, Research
Centre Imarat, of Defence Research and Development Organization
(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, filed a detailed counter affidavit. In
paragraph (3), it was asserted that during the years 1960 and
1962, lands of an extent of Ac.6,807-31 gts spread over 13 villages
lying in Medak District and the former Hyderabad District have
been acquired by the State for establishment of Air Force Academy
by the Ministry of Defence. Out of the total extent of land so
acquired, land of an extent of Ac.5,315-15 gts is securely fenced
and the said land is being used exclusively for the purpose of
operating the Air Force Academy. The balance extent of land of
nearly Ac.1492-16 gts is lying outside the secure fence set up by
the Air Force Academy. Land situate in Dacharam Village and
Darugulla Village are proximately lying in the middle of this extent
of Ac.1,492-16 gts lying outside the secure fence of the Air Force
Academy. It was further asserted that Research Centre, Imarat
(RCI) is one of the important laboratories forming part and parcel
of Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO),  
Ministry of Defence. RCI was sanctioned an important defence
project known as Open Test Range Facility ORANGE) by the
Ministry of Defence, Government of India. For facilitating this
project to be operationalized, land of an extent of Ac.1492.16 gts
belonging to the Air Force Academy (AFA) was transferred to DRDO
by the Ministry of Defence, in view of the proximate activity to be
carried out in the project with that of AFA. When certain disputes
have been raised by the local villagers, when developmental
activities in these lands were undertaken, to set at rest all
speculative claims, a joint survey was undertaken with the
Revenue Department Authorities of the State Government, the
Defence Estate Office and the local villagers, along with the
representatives of the AFA and DRDO. The Revenue Divisional
Officer of the State Government has initially raised apprehension
as to whether land of an extent of Ac.33-10 gts comprising of
Ac.4-17 gts of private patta land and Ac.28-33 gts of Inam land in
Dacharam Village has been acquired for establishing the AFA. This
has, perhaps speculated claims like the one in the present crop of
writ petitions.        
        However, the DRDO has brought out that the State of
Andhra Pradesh has notified in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.28-C
published on 12.06.1962 acquiring lands including Ac.33.10 gts
over which the Revenue Divisional Officer has initially expressed
doubts about their acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector
(Defence), of the then Hyderabad District has also made available a
statement showing village wise and survey number wise the area
for which AIN IZAFA affected in the year 1969 in the name of
Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It is asserted that the
land falling in Sy.Nos.64, 72, 82 and 118 of Dacharam Village
which is forming part and parcel of the disputed land stood
acquired and vested in Ministry of Defence. When the initial
apprehensions have been aired by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ministry of Defence expressed its desire and opinion to have the
matter verified thoroughly by reexamining the land records to
avoid duplicity of acquisition proceedings. But however, in view of
the larger public interest, and the urgency of the requirement of
land, a sum of Rs.14.4 crores was sanctioned under Rehabilitation
And Resettlement National Policy, 2007 and 50% of the said
amount, i.e. Rs.7.2 crores were deposited by the Ministry of
Defence with the Collector, Medak on 30.03.2012 by the DEO, A.P.
Circle, Secunderabad. In view of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette
Notification No.28-C issue dated 12.07.1962, (I am treating the
scanned copy of this as Annexure-1 to this judgment) it is asserted
that the question of acquisition of the land once again would not
arise.
        Heard Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of the State
of Telangana-the first respondent and the District Collector,
Medak-the second respondent, and on behalf of the Defence Estate
Officer-the third respondent, DRDO-the fourth respondent
Sri B. Narayana Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General
appeared.
        In view of the serious nature of the averments made by the
petitioners, I have called for the presence of the Director, RCI and
DEO and interacted with them in the Court Hall.
        A very short question has fallen for consideration in these
cases. As to whether the fourth respondent can utilize lands
belonging to the citizens of this Country without first acquiring it
in accordance with law, however important the project of the
Ministry of Defence is from the stand point of view of the Defence
requirements of this Country. If, the land stood acquired once
before and compensation has also been paid off, the question of
acquiring the same land all over again or paying off compensation
in respect thereof once more would not simply arise.
        The learned Assistant Solicitor General has enclosed a copy
of the supplement to Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette
Notification No.28-C published on Thursday, July 12, 1962 to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent. At page
28 of this Gazette publication, one would find a notification issued
through G.O.Ms.No.965, Revenue (H) Department, Government of  
Andhra Pradesh dated 21.06.1962.  It was a declaration by the
Governor of Andhra Pradesh under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, that the lands specified therein are needed for a
public purpose namely for establishing the Indian Air Force
Academy. Further, in terms and in accordance with Sections 3 & 7
of the Land Acquisition Act appointing the Special Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition, Air Force Academy, Hyderabad, to
perform the functions of a Collector under the Act was also
published. Most significantly, the notification further proceeded by
authorizing the possession of the said lands to be taken on the
expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice
mentioned in Section 9(i) of the Act. All the necessary details of the
lands declared thus under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
relating to Dacharam Village are published at page no.33 onwards
of the said gazette notification. At internal page 34, patta land of
an extent of Ac.0.06 gts lying in Sy No.64/A belonging to Begari
Narsiga and Begari Lachiga were notified. Similarly, patta lands
belonging to Yedlakadi Pentaiah, Rajiah, Bhoomiah, Begari
Bhooma and Nellavalli Malliah of an extent of Ac.0.07 cents lying
in Sy.No.64/B were also shown. Similarly, patta land of an extent
of Ac.0.28 gts lying in Sy.No.72/A belonging to Begari Narsiga and
BEgari Laxmiga were notified. Patta land of an extent of Ac.0.29
gts lying in Sy.No.72/B belonging to Begari Bhumiah, Malliga,
Begari Rajiga, Yedlakadi Pentiah, Bhumiah and Rajiga were also
declared. Private patta land of an extent of Ac.0.25 gts lying in
Sy.No.82/A belonging to Begari Narsiga and Lachmiga and private
patta land of an extent of Ac.0.24 gts lying in Sy.No.82/B
belonging to Begari Rama, Begari Malliga, Begari Rajiga, Yedlakadi
Linga, Yedlakadi Bhooma and Yedla Rajiga were also notified.
Private patta land of Ac.4.0 lying in Sy.No.118 belonging to
Raghavaiah Pujari (Lawaris) was notified and the aforementioned
particulars were found at page 35 of the gazette notification. A
photocopy of this gazette notification was in fact attested by the
Deputy Director, A.P. State Archives and Research Institute,
Tarnaka, Hyderabad, for its authenticity. The necessary orders
were passed by the State Government acting through Sri C.
Seshagiri Rao, Secretary to the Revenue Department at the
relevant point of time.
        In the face of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette issue dated
12.07.1962, the case and claim of each of the writ petitioners, the
assertions made by the petitioners that the respondents have
occupied their lands without following the due process of law are
devoid of any substance or substratum. Obviously, such assertions
were made without having the benefit of consulting the gazette
notifications, by which the lands in question were acquired. The
learned Assistant Solicitor General has enclosed the order of the
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Defence), Hyderabad
District, disclosing that AIN IZAFA in Medak District was affected
to the extent of Ac.1,962-31 gts village wise, survey number wise,
extent wise particulars have also been displayed obviously making
it clear that compensation was settled and paid to the true owners
of the lands. At internal page 5 of this, AIN IZAFA of Dacharam
Village has been published. Land of Ac.0-06 gts lying in
Sy.No.64/A, Ac.0-07 gts lying in Sy.No.64/B, land of an extent of
Ac.0-29 gts lying in Sy.No.72/A, Ac.0-29 gts lying in Sy.No.72/B,
Ac.0-08 gts lying in Sy.No.74, Ac.0-25 lying in Sy.No.82/A, Ac.0-84
gts lying in Sy.No.82/B and land of Ac.4-00 lying in Sy.No.118 are
part of a total extent of Ac.396-08 of Dacharam Village for which
AIN IZAFA was completed. In view of this data, the learned
Government Pleader Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy would submit that
the claim of the petitioners is totally ill-founded and far from true.
        On 08.02.1965, the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India, in their communication to the Chief of Air Staff conveyed the
sanction of the President to the revised estimated cost of Rs.62.00
lakhs for acquisition of Ac.5,164-29 gts of private owned land
along with 14 public tanks for establishing the Air Force Academy
towards payment of solatium at 15% and compensation for
buildings, houses, trees, etcetera. Most importantly, sanction of
the President was also communicated for acquisition of Ac.1,809-
23 gts of government land to be transferred to the Indian Air Force
free of cost by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. From this
communication, it is more than clear that approximately Ac.6,974
and odd land belonging to private parties as well as the
Government of Andhra Pradesh has been acquired in accordance  
with law for establishing the Indian Air Force Academy. There is
also another communication dated 27.12.1967 of the Ministry of
Defence addressed to the Chief of Air Staff conveying the sanction
of the President to the acquisition of Ac.497-31 gts of private
owned land additionally at an estimated cost of Rs.2.90 lakhs.
Through another communication dated 28.08.1969 of the Ministry
of Defence to the Chief of Air Staff, sanction of the President to the
acquisition of private patta land of a total extent of Ac.91-32 gts at
an estimated cost of Rs.99,000/- has also been conveyed. In the
annexure to this communication dated 21.08.1969, land of
Ac.3.0 lying in Sy.No.42 of Dacharam Village was also notified.
Thus, the assertions made by the petitioners that their lands have
not been acquired is a factually incorrect and unsustainable
statement.
        On my further probing, the learned Assistant Solicitor
General has secured and made available copies of the awards
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of various lands
acquired for purposes of establishing the Indian Air Force Academy
at Dindigul, Hyderabad. Copy of the award bearing No.E/40/66
dated 29.10.1966 passed by the Collector for the Lands, for which
claim has been made in these writ petitions is also enclosed. (I am
treating the scanned copy of this as Annexure-2 to this judgment).
It was also brought out that the Ministry of Defence at its Air
Headquarters had accorded sanction on 14.01.2008 to transfer the
management of Air Force land of an extent of 2.5 kms x 2 kms to
DRDO for ORANGE facility. The sanction of the President in this
regard is enclosed as an annexure to the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.No.32743 of 2014 and that is treated as annexure 3 to this
judgment.
        On a careful analysis of the entire material brought on
record, it emerges that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has
acquired vast extents of land lying in several villages of Medak
District and erstwhile Hyderabad District for establishing the Air
Force Academy. Out of that, only certain extents of land has been
securely fenced and the Air Force Academy started carrying on its
training and other related activities. Since large tracts of an extent
of Ac.1,492-16 gts of land was lying outside the secure fence, so
put up by AFA the petitioners and others like them have gained a
wrong impression that those lands have not been acquired and
hence, they were not fenced by Air Force Academy. The fact 
remains that the entire extent of land of Ac.1,492-16 gts lying
outside the secure fence of AFA also stood acquired long time back
and compensation was paid pursuant to the award passed long  
years ago. The claims made by the petitioners and similarly placed
persons concerning the land forming part of this Ac.1492-16 gts is
a baseless, invalid and untruthful claim. No question of acquisition
of these lands all over again would hence, arise. Consequently, no
compensation whatsoever is liable to be paid. The Collector and
District Magistrate of Medak at Sanga Reddy, the Collector and
District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy and the Collector and District
Magistrate, Hyderabad District shall not entertain any claims for
payment of compensation in that regard to the lands acquired for
establishing the Air Force Academy at Dindigul. The Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana and the
Principal Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department
are alone competent to entertain any such claims and process
them, in case justifiable material is produced before them and the
said information shall be first shared by them with the Defence
Estate Office, Secunderabad, the Director, Indian Air Force
Academy, Dindigul and the Director, Research Centre, Imarat,
Defence Research and Development Organization, Hyderabad.   
Lest, fraudulent claims will spring up dime a dozen every day and
the State Government will be taken for a ride by such tricksters.
        The Collector and District Magistrate, Sanga Reddy with
whom a sum of Rs.7.20 crores was deposited by the Defence  
Estate Officer, Secunderabad shall immediately return the said
amount to the Defence Estate Officer, Secunderabad, who shall
retain with him the said money for a period of three years from the
date it was so refunded. During the three year period, if any,
information for payment of compensation is received by him from
the CCLA and or the Principal Secretary to the Government, State
of Telangana, appropriately money can be made available. After the
expiry of the three years period, the money shall be transferred
back to the Ministry of Defence and or as per their instructions the
same may be utilized.
        Since the claims made by the petitioners are found to be
untruthful claims, it is only appropriate that each one of them
shall pay costs of Rs.1,500/- with the Registrar (Judicial), for
which purpose 30 days time is granted. Upon such deposit being
made, the costs shall be apportioned in equal measure between the
Collector and District Magistrate, Sanga Reddy and the Defence
Estate Officer, Secunderabad, to defray a small portion of the
expenditure incurred by them in resisting these cases.
        Accordingly, all these four writ petitions stand dismissed
with costs to the extent indicated supra.
        Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending shall also
stand dismissed. 


        Registry is directed to communicate a copy of the order to
1.      Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,
State of Telangana.
2.      Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA),
State of Telangana
3.      The Collector and District Magistrate of Medak at Sanga
Reddy,
4.      The Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy
5.      The Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District

INDEX OF ANNEXURES    
Annexure
No.
Description
Page
No.
I
The Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification
dated 12.06.1962

13
II
Award bearing No.E/40/66 dated
29.10.1966 passed by the Collector

29
III
Sanction of the President to transfer
the management of Air Force Land to
DRDO for setting up of ORANGE  
project at AFA Dundigal, Hyderabad
dated 14.11.2008.
32
_______________________________________      
JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO          
31.03.2015 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515