Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Syed Hussain And Ors. vs The Joint Secretary, P.W.D. (R And B), ... on 22 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(1)ALT150
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash G.O.Rt.No. 1077, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, dated 14-11-1985 of the 1st respondent, which was published in the "Eenadu" newspaper dated 6-3-1987 seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners to an extent of 0.66 cents in S.No. 360/1, situated in Narsipatnam of Visakhapatnam district. Later on, due to award being passed by the competent authority, an amendment petition - W.P.M.P. No. 3304 of 1992 - was filed seeking to amend the prayer to set aside award No. 1/92 dated 18-9-1991 passed by the Assistant Collector (Land Acquisition), Narsipatnam pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was allowed.
2. During the course of final hearing, W.P.M.P.No. 19841 /92 was filed by the Union of India, represented by the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad, for impleading it as the 3rd respondent to the writ petition, which was ordered on 4-12-1992.
3. Sri Tamada Gopalakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised mainly three grounds viz., (1) for the same land, acquisition proceedings were initiated earlier in 1976 and 1978 by the authorities concerned and the said proceedings were dropped; (2) the authorities have not followed the requirement contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by giving notices to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were denied of the opportunity to file objections; and (3) Section 6 declaration was published on 27-10-1989, which is beyond the period of one year and, therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated. It is contended by Sri Gopala krishna that the land in question though was sought to be acquired earlier in 1976 and 1978 for the purpose of Telecommunications department, later on the said proceedings were dropped. Despite this fact, the respondents are repeatedly making efforts to acquire the same land for reasons unknown. It is also contended that though alternate lands are available in the area, the competent authorities are bent upon acquiring the land of the petitioners and, therefore, such an action is arbitrary and the authorities should not be allowed to exercise such power arbitrarily.
4. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3, separate counters have been filed. It is evident from the counters that the allegation that acquisition proceedings were initiated for the same extent of land in 1976 and 1978 is denied. In the absence of any reply controverting the same, the objection raised by the learned counsel that proceedings were initiated earlier in 1976 and 1978, is rejected. Insofar as the allegation that alternate lands are available, it is stated in the counters that such lands, as projected by the petitioners, have already been assigned for the purpose of house construction to various persons; no suitable land is available; the land of the petitioners is found suitable for the purpose of constructing a telephone exchange on the demand of the public and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary when the objections filed by the petitioners have been considered during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and rejected on 7-7-1989.
5. The next submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that Section 5-A contemplates giving notices to the parties concerned for filing objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that the respondents violated the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act inasmuch as no notices were issued to the petitioners and, therefore, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for want of non-compliance of the said mandatory provision. In support of his contention, Sri Gopalakrishna has relied on the decision of this Court in G. Ratnam v. Union of India, . The learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has placed before me the entire record pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners participated in the Section5-A enquiry and filed objections through their counsel; on 7-7-1989 the Sub-Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Narsipatnam considered the said objections and rejected the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were deprived of opportunity of filing objections before the competent authority. A perusal of the record would undoubtedly disclose that on behalf of the landholders, including the petitioners, different advocates appeared. It is relevant to mention that Sri M.A. Rama Rao, Advocate, on behalf of landholders and Dwarapoodi Rambabu, Chinnayyanaidu and Narsayyamma filed objections before the date of enquiry i.e., 16-6-1989. On 21-6-1989 M/s. Bhagavan, Padmavathi and Ramanjaneyarao filed vakalat on behalf of petitioners 1 and 3 and the case was adjourned on 30-6-1989 enabling them to file objections. It is further evident from the record that on 30-6-1989 on behalf of petitioners 1 and 3 time was sought for filing counter till 7-7-1989 and time was granted. The proceedings dated 7-7-1989 of the Sub-Collector & Land Acquisition Officer indicate as under:
"Advocate for third party not attended the court. He filed objection petitions for both the individuals i.e., for Lalam Venkunaidu & Syed Hussain filed objection petition on 7-7-89. The other advocate has not filed any further representation."
Thus, it is evident that the petitioners not only participated in Section 5-A proceedings through their counsel, but also filed objections, which were considered and rejected by the competent authority on 7-7-1989. The decision, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, has no application insofar as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned. In that case, it looks as if the parties had not participated in Section 5-A proceedings. In the instant case, Section 4(1) notification was issued, according to the revenue records, indicating the names of the pattedars of the land in S.No. 360/1. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners filed objections before the competent authority and participated in Section 5-A enquiry. The competent authority has considered the objections and rejected their claim. In the penultimate paragraph of proceedings dated 7-7-1989, it is indicated as under:
"In the above circumstances, the objections raised by the landholders through advocates are not valid and they are overruled. Therefore, D.D. is proposed. In the 4(1) notification which was approved and published contains the names of only some of the landholders. At the time of enquiry Under Section 5-A, Syed Hussain and Lalam Venkataramana had also filed registered documents for the extents in tine same survey number purchased by them. Therefore it is necessary to include their names also in the D.D. proposals."
Thus, the finding in the above paragraph would go to indicate mat in Section 4(1) notification the names of the petitioners though not found, as it was notified in accordance with the revenue records, subsequently the petitioners filed objections in Section 5-A proceedings and, therefore, the competent authority has rightly directed the names of the petitioners to figure in Section 6 declaration also to the extent of their holding.
6. After Section 4(1) notification, the interested parties may file objections before the competent authority as contemplated in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act. The further requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 5-A is mat on any objection being filed by the interested parties, it is mandatory on the part of the competent authority to issue notices to the parties who have filed objections fixing a date of hearing of their objections, and hear the same. In the instant case, it is evident from the record that vakalats were filed on behalf of the petitioners and necessary time was given as sought by the advocates for filing objections. On 7-7-1989, objections were considered in the presence of the parties and were rejected by the competent authority. When the parties participated in the entire proceedings and filed objections, it is not open to them to agitate that no notice was issued to them as required under Section 5-A of the Act. When the parties choose to participate in the proceedings and file their objections and the objections are heard and decided on merits in the presence of the parties, it cannot be said that the parties were denied of their rights in placing their stand before the competent authority, inasmuch as there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Nonetheless there is no violation of mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view, the contentions raised by the petitioners have no substance in the circumstances of the case.
7. The third contention is that the requirement of Section 6 declaration has not been fulfilled inasmuch as Section 6 declaration published in the official gazette was beyond the time stipulated and, therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have to be quashed on this count alone. It is pertinent to note that draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 24-1-1987 and paper publication was made on 6-3-1987. It is settled law that for the purpose of limitation, the last of the dates of the publication of Section 4(1) notification, which includes paper publication, has to be taken into account. In the present case, the last of the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the newspaper was on 6-3-1987. Therefore, Section 6 declaration should have been within one year from 6-3-1987. It is contended by Sri Gopalakrishna that draft declaration under Section 6 was published in the gazette on 27-10-1989 and, therefore, it is beyond the time stipulated. It is relevant to note that some of the landholders filed Writ Petition No. 4514/87 on 14-4-1987 in this court and obtained stay of further proceedings. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8-11-1988 by this Court. For the purpose of publication of Section 6 declaration, the period, during which any proceedings were pending in the competent court, has to be excluded. Sri Gopalakrishna contended that even if the period of stay granted by this Court to the date of disposal of the writ petition is excluded, Section 6 declaration which was published in the Gazette on 27-10-1989, is clearly beyond the period of one year contemplated for this purpose. Sri K. Rajanna, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondent No. 3, contended that though Section 6 declaration was published in the gazette on 27-10-1989, but it was approved by the Government on 22-9-1989 itself and, therefore, the crucial date that has to be considered for the purpose of limitation is the approval of the Government. Thus, it is contended by Sri Rajanna, the requirement of one year has been complied with and there is no delay insofar as Section 6 declaration is concerned. In upport of his contention, he has relied on two decisions viz., Umesh Aggarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1989 NOC 160 (All.)., and Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. State, .
8. Section 4(1) notification is an indication of an intention of the Government for the proposed acquisition of particular piece of land for public purpose. Enabling the parties to file objections under Section 5-A, on hearing such objections, if any, and thereafter if the competent authority is satisfied that the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is warranted and there is no objection from any side for such acquisition, then the Government approves such acquisition proceedings. Once the approval of the competent authority is obtained, the subsequent procedure, such as publication in gazette, etc., is only a follow-up action. The approval of Section 6 declaration by the government is an indication that land is acquired, the purpose for which it is acquired and the parties from whom the land is sought. Once the approval is given within the period of one year, the other requirement, such as publication in official gazette and paper publication need not be within the period stipulated. If the authorities could satisfactorily show to the Court that the approval of the competent authority is within the period of one year from the last of the dates of publication of Section 4(1) notification, I am of the view, the requirement, such as publication in official gazette, paper publication, etc., need not be within one year. From the two decisions cited by Sri Rajanna, it is evident that the approval of Section 6 declaration has to be within the period of one year from the last of the dates of Section 4(1) notification and the subsequent proceedings i.e., publication in gazette, paper publication, etc., need not be within one year. In the instant case, the last of the dates of publication of Section 4(1) notification in newspaper was on 6-3-1989. The time consumed for the court proceedings if excluded, the approval of the draft declaration of the Government on 22-9-1989 is within one year. Though the publication of draft declaration in gazette was on 27-10-1989 and paper publication was on 16-11-1989, these two aspects have no effect on Section 6 declaration once the approval of Section 6 declaration is within the time stipulated i.e., one year.
9. The further allegation of the petitioners that they are small farmers and are solely depending on the land acquired, is denied by the respondents contending that the petitioners are businessmen and they purchased this land in Narsipatnarn for the purpose of constructing a commercial complex and, therefore, they cannot be termed as small farmers. In this case, it is seen that land acquisition proceedings, including passing of award, have reached finality. The land is acquired for the purpose of constructing a telephone exchange, which is for a public purpose. When the entire acquisition proceedings, including passing of award, have been completed after following due procedure, considering the rival contentions in the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
10. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.