1. The present matter is coming up for quite some time with a direction to the respondent Authorities including the Corporation to clarify their stand with regard to Survey no. 659 Hissa no. 5 measuring 18 ares and also 11 ares of land. So far as Hissa no. 4 of Survey no. 659, there is no dispute with requisition of subject matter of land in the year 1983, which ended with a final award in the year 1986. There are two Hissas i.e 659/4 and 659/5. In the year 1984 itself portion of land measuring about 21 ares of land was taken possession on the ground of formation of road. There is record for taking possession of this portion of the land. However another portion of land measuring 11 Ares also came to be made use for the formation of road, but no records are maintained further. In other words, though there is a formation of road so far as records are concerned, it shows as if requisition has not been complied with in respect of 11 ares of land in Hissa no. 4 of Survey no. 659.
2. So far as Hissa no. 5 of Survey no. 659 measuring 18 ares of land it seems to be a grave situation. After requisition in the year 1983, the control over the property came to the hands of respondent Corporation and they were in-charge of the formation of the road etc. So far as the requisitioned lands with clear measurement shown in the requisition, the respondent Corporation allowed the encroachers to put up hutments and as such they came into possession of 18 ares of land. These facts are clarified by the joint inspection of the Corporation with the petitioner and other department officials, which has resulted in the map indicating the clear measurements placed on record by the Corporation today which is marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification.
3. The above consequences or the action or inaction of the respondent Corporation leading to the above consequences are traceable to the respondent Corporation alone for not maintaining proper record or for not taking proper control of the property in question. The fact remains though petitioner could have asked for release of the land for not making use of the land in terms of requisition, cannot have the benefit of such release since practically the petitioner is not able to get the vacant possession of the land since 11 ares is used for formation of road without maintaining record and 18 ares is allowed to be encroached by third parties. In that view of the matter though we are inclined to allow prayer (i) for release of the land ultimately, the consequences of not having benefit of the release of the land, the respondent Authority has to either pay compensation or accord Transfer of Development Rights in favour of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the procedure.
4. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the application to be filed by the petitioner for according Transfer of development rights-TDR benefit and if it is not possible, pay compensation accordingly. Such application for transfer of development rights shall be presented within four weeks from today and after submission of application for transfer of development rights benefit the same shall be considered within three months. It is made clear that request for TDR so far as 18 ares or 11 ares of land where encroachment is found cannot be rejected on the ground of existence of encroachers, since the encroachments are on account of laches on the part of the Corporation.
Comments