JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner filed this writ petition as Karta of Sri Rai Nalinaksha Basu Bahudur HUF assailing the inaction of the respondents in disposing of and non-consideration of various representations and letters submitted on 26/4/1990, 12/7/1993, 15/6/2016 and 16/6/2016 including letter/notice dtd. 30/7/2018 for survey and demarcation of the un-acquired land encroached by respondents, after major portion of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. was acquired out of Ac.8.28 1/2 cents situated in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's great grandfather Sri Rai Nalinaksha Basu Bahadur had purchased the land extent Ac.8.28 1/2 cents situated in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district in the year 1907. In the year 1959, a piece of land admeasuring 655.57 Sq. yards was leased out to Caltex petrol company (now, HPCL company) from the land purchased. The Chairman, Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam, later upgraded as Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (4th respondent), made a requisition for acquisition and development of vacant sites for constructions of houses for lower and middle class income groups. In the year 1962, the Land Acquisition Officer had issued notification for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. in T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district along with other huge extent of land. During enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, late Pundarikaksha Basu and other family members had submitted objections on various grounds. The Chairman, Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam/4th respondent assured them to allot a developed site of about 1600 Sq. yards in the same area. The same was accepted by the then Karta of petitioner's family and they waived all their objections for acquisition of the land. Accordingly, the award vide Proceedings No.9/1996 dtd. 21/9/1966 was passed by awarding meager amount of compensation. Then, the petitioner submitted a representation on 26/4/1990 to the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 requesting them to demarcate the left out area of 1709.39 Sq. yards of the petitioner's land. After lot of persuasion and various representations, the 5th respondent issued a letter vide File No.RC.B9/1149/90 dtd. 14/6/1993 asking Bisalaksha Basu, the then Kartha of the family, to appear before the Assistant Director, District Maintenance Unit (Collectorate) along with all the records, etc. on 28/6/1993. The Town Surveyor demonstrated the boundaries of T.S.No.85, Block 10 of Waltair, Visakhapatnam district. Due to some discrepancies in the demarcation, he made another representation on 12/7/1993 to the 2nd respondent to provide details of survey conducted and show the boundaries of the land in possession of 1st respondent. The major portion of the acquired land is still vacant and undeveloped. Believing the words of the 4th respondent that they would be allotted developed site admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards after developing the land, no serious action has been taken by their ancestors. The respondents had encroached the petitioner's land and are in possession of the land without any acquisition as per law. When the respondents denied petitioner's entitlement of land, late Bisalaksha Basu along with other filed Writ Petition No.3666 of 2007. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed order. When the respondents not complied the order, they filed C.C.No.1320 of 2012 for non-compliance of the order in W.P.No.3666 of 2007. Then only, the respondents issued TDR upon execution of gift deed in the year 2013 in respect of the land effected in road widening programme. Sri Bisalaksha Basu who pursued the matter with the 4th respondent had died. The petitioner being a senior citizen staying in Calcutta could not pursue the authorities on regular basis due to advance age. In spite of several requests, the respondent kept silent over the issue without disposing of the representation. On representation of the petitioner dtd. 15/2/2016 to the 2nd respondent, as per the directions of the authorities, the petitioner made payments vide challan on 16/6/2016. The petitioner has been requesting the respondents to conduct survey of the land and allot land admeasuring 1600 Sq. yards as per the award.
(3.)The 4th impleaded respondent - Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority in place of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and mainly averred that the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.7.30310 sft. was acquired and award was also passed on 21/9/1966 vide Award No.9/1996 and possession was handed over on 29/10/1996 by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Visakhapatnam Municipality whose compensation of Rs.1,37,793.90 Ps. was awarded in the year 1966, not being satisfied the petitioner asked for reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference Court, the Subordinate Judge, enhanced the amount in O.P.No.45/1967 to Rs.1,91,654.59 Ps. Inclusive of 15% solatium with interest @ 4% per annum. The petitioner submitted representation dtd. 26/4/1990 to the respondents 1,4 and 5 to demarcate the land admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards. But, nearly after 50 years of acquisition, the petitioner approached this Court for survey and demarcation of the land admeasuring 1709.39 Sq. yards alleged to be under encroachment by the respondents. The petitioner is aware of the developments over the years in the area and the land has become a major place for business and bustling activities of commercial complexes, thus increase in the land values and prices. The petitioner has developed an eyesore and with an intention to cause impediment to the progress with an ulterior motive by suppressing the facts filed this writ petition. The writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. The petitioner approached this Court without properly explaining the delay. The delay is more than the limitation fixed for civil action. The petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the remedy. What the petitioner cannot achieve directly in Civil Court for recovery of possession more than the prescribed limitation of 12 years under Article 64 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Sec. 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. But, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief for which the petitioner is not entitled. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.