Onus is on petitioner for claiming relief: Andhra Pradesh High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 16 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that the burden was on the petitioner to establish the reasons for the delay and laches in approaching the court seeking relief from it, against the state, for its alleged illegal or wrongful executive action.

Justice P. Naveen Rao was dismissing a petition by Mohd Abdul Khader, seeking a direction to the state government, to pay balance compensation for acquiring 102 acres in Cherlapally, of Ranga Reddy district, in 1966.

Referring to a judgment of the apex court, the judge reiterated that the conduct of the petitioner should not be blameworthy, of the laches, undue delay, acquiescence, and waiver.

Ignoring the delay and laches on the part of a person, claiming the relief, if the relief was granted by the High Court, it was unsustainable as it would amount to not making decision judiciously.

The land of the petitioner was acquired in 1966 at the rate of Rs 2,000 per acre.

Aggrieved by the award, he moved the civil court and the civil court enhanced the rate to Rs 3,500 per acre and then he preferred an appeal before the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. 

Then the petitioner moved the Supreme Court contending that for the neighboring lands compensation at the rate of Rs 2 per square yard was granted, which lands were acquired under the same Gazette notification.

The Apex Court considered his plea and disposed of the petitions holding that there should not be any distinction between the lands covered by the same notification. After that the authorities awarded compensation to him by excluding 1/3rd of the total extent of the land, for the purpose of roads, and common areas. He received compensation under protest in 1993.

In 2006, he moved the High Court by filing a writ stating that he was entitled for the compensation for his total land and the authorities withheld the compensation for 1/3 of the total land. Despite his representation, the authorities refused to pay the balance amount.

The government claimed that 1/3 of the land to be excluded as in any development of land, into a residential or commercial property, certain percentage of land has to be earmarked for roads and common amenities and said portion of land vests in the government.

The government contended that if the petitioner was not satisfied on the compensation, determined by the competent authority, in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court, he ought to have filed Execution Petition before civil court.

The Supreme Court passed the order in 1979 and after lapsing of almost two decades he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, which cannot be sustainable, the government argued.

Citing the larger bench decision of the AP High Court, in Bhimidipati Annapoorna’s case, the judge said that where the amount of compensation, finally determined was not paid, a person must first resort to the alternate remedy of taking out execution proceedings.

Despite it, if there was delay in paying the compensation, jurisdiction of this court can be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution, the judge added.

Justice Naveen Rao found that the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for not taking the execution proceedings and it was not a case of non-payment of compensation, therefore, the remedy of writ petition was not maintainable.

Salahuddin Ayub gets bail in AP High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 15 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court has suspended the conviction of Mohammed Salah-ddin Ayub, former director of Parkwood International School in Ranga Reddy district and granted him bail.

Ayub was convicted by the Vth additional metropolitan sessions judge on October 11, 2013, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for raping a girl student of the school.
Ayub was arrested by the police in July 2010 based on a complaint lodged by the victim’s father.

Ayub moved the High Court challenging the order of the trial court contending that the prosecution has failed in proving that he had coerced the girl to undergo an abortion at a private hospital.
He said that the police booked the case against him in July 2010, while the alleged offence was claimed to have been committed in March 2010.

After hearing the appeal Justice Raja Elango suspended the conviction and directed the trial court to release the petitioner on bail till further orders. The judge directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties for Rs 1 lakh and to surrender his passport before the trial court.

The judge also directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court without fail on the first Monday of every month till the completion of  hearing on his appeal.

GHMC can’t tax vacant lands: High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 14 : The Andhra Pradesh  High Court has ruled that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has no right to levy tax on vacant lands other than the land appurtenant to buildings.

A bench comprising Justice G. Rohini and Justice Challa Kodanda Ram declared that levying of tax on vacant lands other than the land appurtenant to the buildings as provided under Section 212 (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was illegal.

K. Rajiv, a resident of Jubilee Hills, moved the court challenging the notice for a tax of Rs 2,44,753 for the vacant land. He told the court that he had applied to the GHMC to construct a house and the permit was given in 2008, and construction completed in 2010. He said GHMC had demanded vacant land tax for 2006-10. Rajiv said there was no provision for vacant land tax in the Act.

The HC directed the GHMC to calculate property tax in the manner explained in the judgement in the Himayatnagar Ratepayers Association vs the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Commissioner case.

of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The bench allowed by the petitions by quashing the property tax demands.

Telugu Desam leader told state security not possible

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov 9 : A division bench of the AP High Court comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar on Friday observed that it may not be possible for the government to provide personal security to each and every individual.

The bench dismissed a writ appeal by TD leader Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan challenging the dismissal of his petition by a single judge.

The Telugu Desam leader had approached the court, seeking a direction to the state government to continue his personal security provided earlier.

The single judge had refused to issue an order to the government and upheld the decision of the government to withdraw the security given to the petitioner.

Justice Sengupta said that there was no illegality in the order passed by the single judge.

In a country having a population of 120 crore and a state with a population of 8 crore it would not be possible for the state to extend personal security to each and every person on the cost of the exchequer, Justice Sengupta said.

Citing the assassination of Indira Gandhi, despite having heavy security, the Chief Justice said that there are several other agencies who can extend security to individuals on cost basis.
The bench ruled that the order of the single judge does not warrant interference by it.

Court upholds President power to split AP

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 7: The AP High Court on Wednesday stated that that there was no nexus between Article 371D and Article 3 of the Constitution.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta held that the President can under no circumstances be restrained by any court and not even by Parliament. The court dismissed a public interest litigation opposing the decision of the Centre to bifurcate AP.

Article 371D, a Constitutional amendment, ensures equitable opportunities for people belonging to different regions of the state in the matter of public employment and education. Article 3 deals with the Centre’s power to create new states.

Citing the prayer of petitioner P.V. Krishnaiah, an advocate, to restrain the President from exercising his power under Article 3 of the Constitution, in pursuance of any recommendation made by the Union Cabinet regarding bifurcation of the state, the Chief Justice said, “We think this prayer cannot be entertained by the court at all, as it is an absolute constitutional power of the President, as enshrined in the Constitution.”

The court made it clear that “the President was absolutely free to act in terms of the provisions of Article 3.”

Next: Court can’t give direction on Article 371D, says CJ

In a detailed order, Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta discussed the various contentions of the petitioner as far as Article 371D was concerned. The petitioner argued that as long as the Article is in force, the Union of India has no authority or power under Article 3 of the Constitution to bifurcate the existing state of AP and form proposed new state of Telangana.

Article 371D was introduced by the Centre by amending the Indian Constitution during the formation of Andhra Pradesh state to ensure equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the state in the matter of public employment and education.

The Chief Justice refuted the contention by saying that “according to us, this provision does not have any nexus as to the subject matter of Article 3 of the Constitution, which operates in different field, question of overriding effect or inconsistency as argued does not arise”.

The petitioner contended that in the event the state is bifurcated in exercise of power of Article 3 of the Constitution, then the object as enshrined in Article 371D will be “frustrated and rendered nugatory”.

Answering the above contention, Justice Sengupta said, “We do not find any merit in this submission. We are of the view that the whole object of introducing this Article is to provide safeguard measures in the interest of the region of AP.”

He said on a plain reading of the provision, it appears that the special provision has been made in order to give a special privilege to Andhra Pradesh and it does not transpire that this was intended to give any overriding effect over other provisions of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice held that in the event of bifurcation, ultimately, it was for Parliament to take measures for re framing the same provision with suitable amendment or deleting altogether. He ruled that it was a consequential measure if necessary and it was not for the Court to say.

Elaborating on his opinion, Justice Sengupta said that the powers of the President and all organs of state concerned will certainly look into this matter and it was their anxiety and they will act and no one can presume that the Parliament or the President or state Assembly will act unconstitutionally.

He said that “we are of the view that Article 3 of the Constitution operates in a different field and for different purpose and there is no nexus even remotely with each other. Even they have no quarrel with each other”.

Mentioning the apprehensions of the petitioner, the Chief Justice said, “We think that in which way the Parliament and Union of India have proceeded in the matter cannot be told by anyone and it is for the Centre, then Parliament, President and lastly the state legislature. They can proceed in their own way. The Court cannot give any direction.”