Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pyla Applanaidu And Ors. vs The Mandal Revenue Officer And Land ... on 31 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(3)ALT220
ORDER Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.
1. This writ petition is directed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that the acquisition of Ac. 2-20 cents and Ac. 1-28 cents respectively covered by Survey Nos. 156/1 /B2 and 157/4 both situate at Bapiraju Kothapalli village (hereinafter referred to as "B.K. Palli") Kotavurutla Mandalam, Vishakhapatnam District, as illegal and null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings regarding the acquisition of the said lands.
2. Ac. 2-20 cents covered by Survey No. 156/1, Ac. 0-74 cents covered by Survey No. 157/2, Ac. 0-89 cents covered by Survey No. 157/3 and Ac. 1-28 cents covered by Survey No. 157/4, all situate at B.K. Palli village were sought to be acquired for allotment of house sites for weaker sections and regarding the same proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the said land as per the proceedings dt. 4-1-1986 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A notification was published regarding the acquisition of the said lands in the district gazette, Visakhapatnam on 15-1-1986, notification was also made in two daily newspapers viz., Andhra Prabha and Eenadu respectively under dates 14-1-86 and 18-1-86 and the substance of Section 4(1) notification was duly published in the locality under date 28-1-1986. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted on 5-3-1986 at mandal office at Kotavurutla. In the course of the enquiry it was brought to the notice of the revenue authorities that certain lands wee alienated under registered sale deeds and consequently Ac. 1-63 cents of land covered by Survey No. 156 was excluded from the acquisition proceedings. While the government was proceeding further for acquisition of the remaining land, the present writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings.
3. Though number of submissions were made challenging the acquisition proceedings, the main contention of the writ petitioner is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Visakhapatnam District Gazette on 15-1-1986 while the publication of the same was made in Andhra Prabha on 14-1-1986 i.e., one day before the Gazette notification and consequently it is contended that the notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act is not valid. The learned Government Pleader relies upon the decision reported in M/s Garg Farms, Delhi v. State of Utter Pradesh, to show that even where publication was made, before the Gazette publication, the notification is not bad under law. The Allahabad case is one where the notification Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are dated respectively 25-2-88 and 7-7-88 regarding acquisition of land for National Thermal Corporation Ltd., and Section 4(1) notification was published in two daily newspapers for circulation in the concerned locality on March 20,1988 and it was published in the official gazette on 26-3-1988. The public notice of substance of the notification was given by the Collector at the convenient places in the said locality on March 8, 1988. Thus while Section 4(1) notification was published in the official gazette on March 26,1988, the same was published in the two newspapers having circulation in the concerned locality on March 10, 1988 itself. Having considered the entire matter, the Allahabad High Court relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, held that the notification is not bad under law. This is a case directly on the point. Though Section 4(1) notification of the case on hand was approved as early as on 4-1-1986, it was published in the official gazette on 15-1-1986 while in Andhra Prabha a local daily, it was published on 14-1-1986. Thus the fact that Section 4(1) notification was published in the Newspaper one day before the Gazette publication of Section 4(1) notification is of no consequence and the same is not a ground for quashing the acquisition proceedings.
4. Mr. M.S.K. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are small farmers and the said fact is also admitted by the Government in its counter and consequently their cases may also be considered for allotment of house sites. Para 3 of the counter of the Government shows that in the event of the writ petitioners being small farmers requiring house sites, their cases will be considered for allotment of house sites from out of the acquired lands. Hence the government shall consider the cases of the petitioners regarding allotment of house sites provided they are small farmers.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, ordered. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.