Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Ratnam And Others vs Union Of India Rep. By Its Secretary Law ... on 4 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1993AP51, 1992(3)ALT289
ORDER
1. This writ petition arises under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (herreinaftcr referred to as "the Act). The draft notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette dated 11-7-1984. The case of the petitioner is that the substance of this notification was not published in the locality. But as I could see from the records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the substance of notification was published in the office of Collector and the Office of the Tahsildar on 7-8-1984, and in the Grampanchayat, the locality and at the lands on 8-8-1984. Section 6 declaration was published in the gazette dated 5-8-1987. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Tulasi Reddy that S. 6 declaration was published beyond three years from S. 4(1) notification fails.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises another contention that for the period prior to 24-9-1984 and in respect of notification under S. 4(1) the period of three years is computable not from the date of publication of notification but only from the date of notification. I do not see any force in this contention as all notifications issued prior to 24-9-1984 or thereafter i.e. after the amendment, the three years or one year period respectively are reckoned from the date of publication of S.4(1) notification and not from the date of issue of S. 4(1) notification. As such this contention also fails.
3. Mr. V. Tulasi Reddy, then contends that the petitioners purchased this land bearing S. No. 12A admeasuring Ac 2.12 Guntas from the previous owner Golla Chandraiah through a registered sale deed dated 13-6-1974 and that the revenue records reflect the name of the petitioner in the columns relating to pattadar as also possessor.
4. I have perused the file produced by Mr. K. Janardhana Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. The only document which was perused for the purpose of knowing as to who are the affected and interested persons is the Pahani Pathrik for the year 1980-81. The same is not at all relevant for knowing as to who is really affected person or interested person. The relevant pahani is of 1982-83 and that was not perused. In fact in the columns of the pahani for the year 1981-82 the names of petitioners are recorded as both pattedars and possessors. A mere look to these pahanis of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and also an enquiry with any of the village Officers, particularly with patwari, would have revealed that the petitioners were the interested persons. But no efforts were made to know as to who was really interested person. It is true that non-mention of names of persons in S. 4(1) notification is not fatal. But, coming to the substantive right guaranteed under S. 5A of the Act, where personal notices have to be served apart from general notification, this aspect becomes very relevant and pertinent. It is an admitted case that the petitioners were not served with any personal notice under S. 5A of the Act, with the result, the mandate thereunder is grossly violated.
5. The enquiry under S. 5 A of the Act is very valuable and substantive right and it cannot be brushed aside or denied in this light-hearted fashion. It is needless to mention that unless the provisions of S. 5A are complied with, based on the same the declaration under S. 6 will not stand. In any case, as the petitioners are entitled as of right to a personal notice under S. 5A of the Act upon which they would have raised objection. Even though no specific plea has been taken in the counter-affidavit, Mr. K. Janardhana Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents, has placed the file relating to the case before me and contended that on 16-8-1984, the concerned officer of HUDA has reported that the notices were not received by the parties and that they will take the notices after consulting the Sarpanch, But, this does not refer to any particular names on whom it was sought to be served and who has made such a statement. Then, Mr. K. Janardhan Rao, has appraised me of a joint representation dated 20-8-1984 made by K. Paramaiah and 66 others and pointing out to two names who are the signatories of the said representation made to the Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA. He says that they are among the petitioners. But, this was not stated in the counter affidavit so that the writ petitioners could meet that point. That apart, even assuming that a representation was made on 20-8-1984, enquiry was bound to be conducted under S.5A and at least for that purpose, a personal notice ought to have been issued to the petitioners. In paragraph 6 of the counter, even though it is stated that the then Land Acquisition Officer issued notices for conducting enquiry under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act to all the pattedars/enjoyers of the land under acquisition fixing the date of enquiry on 1-9-1984. The file produced before me does not contain service of any such notice on the writ petitioners. Mr. Janardhana Rao could not point out any such notice addressed to the writ petitioners or their acknowledgments. In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that even assuming that the petitioners were in know of the acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as they were not served with any notices of the enquiry under S. 5 A of the Act, the enquiry under S. 5A is vitiated in so far as the petitioners are concerned. In the circumstances, the draft declaration under S.6 notified on 5-8-1987 is set aside and as even after conducting S.5A enquiry fresh draft declaration cannot be issued in view oi lapse of more than 3 years from 11-7-1984, Section 4(1) notification dated 11-7-1984 and declaration under S. 6 of the Act, dated 5-8-1987 are quahsed. It is, however, open to the respondents to reinitiate proceedings, if they so chose. However, I make it clear that the extent involved ill this writ petition is only Ac.2-18 guntas as compared to a very huge extent of 430 acres under the same notification for the purpose of constructing houses by HUDA. This writ petition is allowed purely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and by reason of quashing the notification under Sections 4( 1) and 6 the entire land acquisition proceedings will not get affected. This judgment will only result in quashing of that part of the notifications pertaining to only survey Nos. 12A admeasuring Ac. 2.18 guntas situated at Tellapur and is not applicable to any other land under the said notifications under Ss.-4(1) and 6 of the Act. I also make it clear that quashing of a part of the notification pertaining to the particular land in the instant case at the instance of the writ petitioners herein will not entitle the other persons to contend that the entire notification under Ss. 4(1) and 6 get quashed of set aside automatically.
6. The other points raised by Mr. V. Tulasi Reddy regarding the constitutional validity of 1st proviso to S.6 of the Act, reckoning the three years period or one year period, as the case may be, from the date of publication of S. 4(1) and not from the date of notification are not adjudicated here, as this writ petition is allowed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice referred to supra. No costs.
7. Petition allowed.