Hyderabad Master Plan Can't Override Landowners' Right To Compensation Before Dispossession: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has directed the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to follow due process before taking portions of private plots affected by a road Master Plan. The Court directed the authorities to survey and demarcate the affected portions after notice to the landowners and determine their entitlement to...
The Telangana High Court has directed the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to follow due process before taking portions of private plots affected by a road Master Plan.
The Court directed the authorities to survey and demarcate the affected portions after notice to the landowners and determine their entitlement to compensation in accordance with law.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao passed the order on a petition by owners of five plots in Khanamet Village, who complained that their structures and compound walls had been demolished for widening an existing 30-feet internal road to an 80/120-feet road under the Master Plan.
The Court observed:
“Though learned Standing Counsel for HMDA contended that the master plan cannot be kept in abeyance by virtue of its notification, since it is not the case of the petitioners that the master plan is not properly issued, but their grievance in the writ petition is that the authorities being statutory authorities, are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under law by initiating land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the affected portion of the land, and unless and until the compensation is paid, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from their respective properties and thus, the demolition of the compound wall and the structures as on the date, is nothing but abusive of process of law.”
The petitioners claimed ownership and possession over Plot Nos. 138, 140, 141, 142 and 144 in a sanctioned layout formed by the Survey of India Cooperative Housing Society Limited in Khanamet Village.
According to them, the layout was approved by the Kondapur Gram Panchayat in 1981 and showed both the Master Plan roads passing through the layout and the internal roads leading to different plots. An existing 30-feet internal road was now proposed to be widened to 80/120 feet, affecting portions of their plots.
They contended that since the plots had been purchased through separate registered sale deeds, the authorities could not take the affected portions without following the statutory procedure. They sought initiation of land acquisition proceedings and determination of compensation before their land was taken.
The petitioners had approached the High Court in 2013 after alleging demolition of structures and compound walls on their plots. They also challenged the proposed widening of the internal road and sought restoration of the demolished structures.
HMDA submitted that it had only prepared the Master Plan, which was subsequently approved by the then Andhra Pradesh Government in October 2001 and duly notified in the Gazette. It further informed the Court that Khanamet Village presently fell within GHMC's jurisdiction.
HMDA also pointed out that a dispute concerning the same property was pending before the Supreme Court, where a status quo order was operating. The petitioners, however, submitted that the dispute pending before the Supreme Court concerned compensation and not their title to the plots.
The High Court noted that when the writ petition was admitted in March 2013, an interim direction had already been issued restraining the authorities from interfering with the petitioners' possession over the five plots except by following due process of law.
Considering the petitioners' grievance that their plots were affected by the Master Plan, the Court directed HMDA and GHMC to follow the procedure prescribed under the HMDA Act, 2008 or other applicable laws.
It directed them to conduct a proper survey after giving due intimation to the petitioners and demarcate the portions of their properties affected by the Master Plan. The authorities must thereafter determine compensation strictly in accordance with law and applicable Government Orders.
The Court said:
“If the petitioners are entitled for the payment of compensation, the respondent authorities shall disburse the amount forthwith strictly in accordance with law.”
In view of the proceedings stated to be pending before the Supreme Court concerning the same layout, the High Court also permitted HMDA and GHMC to ascertain the exact nature of that dispute after obtaining legal advice and thereafter take appropriate action.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Yarala Narasimha Reddy & Ors. v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 8421 of 2013
Appearance: V. Ravinder Rao, Senior Counsel, for the petitioners; V. Siddhartha Goud, representing V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel, for HMDA; G. Madhusudhan Reddy, Standing Counsel, for GHMC.