Keshav Prashad Vs. Commissioner and Special Officer, Mch, Hyderabad and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

constitution - right to property - article 300-a of constitution of india - demolition of building by municipal authorities for expansion of road without getting owner's permission - citizen's property can be taken over by state only after following procedure laid down by statute by virtue of article 300-a - demolition of property without recourse to statutory process violative of article 300-a - held, direction to pay compensation to petitioner passed. - .....or by purchasing the land upon holding the negotiations thereof. for the reasons aforementioned we set aside the order under appeal and direct that the appellant shall not be deprived from the land in question, save and except in accordance with law including by acquiring the property in terms of the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 ('the act' for brevity.) 4. having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant's constitutional right has been infringed, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) by way of damages with liberty to the writ petitioner-appellant herein to file a regular suit for damages. 5. we, however, make it clear that it will be open to the respondents herein to issue appropriate notification under section 4(1) of the act, in which event the law will take its own course. 6. this appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions. no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

S.B. Sinha, CJ.

1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the constructions raised by the petitioner could have been demolished for the purpose of widening of the road without the consent of the appellant.

2. Before the learned single Judge the respondent herein had relied upon aletter dated 10-8-2000 wherein some authority purported to act on behalf of the Commissioner alleging:

'Sir/Madam,

Sub :--MCH: TP: SEC:CIR-V - Road widening from Toliehowki Junction to Darga (MCH Limits) - Affected portion under Road Widening - Regarding.

With reference to the above subject, it was discussed in personally and taken over the possession in respect of premises No. 8-1-328 at Toli Chowki, Hyderabad to an extent of area 4279.74 Sq.Mt. and same sketch plan is enclosed.

Thank you for the co-operation extended and the MCH will consider your request as per the G.O. Ms. No.483-MA, dated 24-8-1998 for considering in accordance to Rules.

Thanking you.'

The contents of the said letter had been denied and disputed by the writ petitioner -appellant. According to the writ petitioner -appellant the said letter was issued by way of a ploy. In this aforementioned situation we directed the learned Counsel for the respondents to produce the records before us, from a perusal whereof it does not appear that any consent in writing for the aforementioned purpose was given by the appellant herein. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that by reason of the said purported letter alone no inference could be drawn that the constructions of the writ petitioner-appellant had been demolished upon obtaining his consent. The said purported action on the part of the respondents, therefore, must be held to be wholly illegal.

3. The writ petitioner-appellant had a right to hold property. Having regard to the provisions of Article 300(A) of theConstitution of India, such a constitutional right could not have been taken away except in accordance with law i.e., by taking recourse to the statutory provisions of acquisition by the State, by invoking the Doctrine of Eminent Domain or by purchasing the land upon holding the negotiations thereof. For the reasons aforementioned we set aside the order under appeal and direct that the appellant shall not be deprived from the land in question, save and except in accordance with law including by acquiring the property in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for brevity.)

4. Having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant's constitutional right has been infringed, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) by way of damages with liberty to the writ petitioner-appellant herein to file a regular suit for damages.

5. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the respondents herein to issue appropriate notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in which event the law will take its own course.

6. This appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions. No order as to costs.