Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ch. Bhaskara Rao And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 1 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD193, 1999(4)ALT397, 1999 A I H C 3624, (1999) 4 ANDHLD 193 (1999) 4 ANDH LT 397, (1999) 4 ANDH LT 397
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER M.S. Liberhan, C.J.
1. This is one of the litigations in which the petitioners are venturing to gamble in the vagaries by articulating the procedural laws. Petty land of 0.54 cents, 0.66 cents and 0.54 cents of petitioner Nos.l to 3 respectively was acquired vide notification dated 15-7-1993. The petitioner No.2 challenged the same along with others. Having not been successful in getting the notification quashed the petitioner No.2 joining the two other petitioners who, for the reasons best known to tliem, did not join those earlier petitioners again on 8-12-1998 impugned the said notification. It is not disputed at the Bar that the award has been given on 29-10-1998 and possession has been taken on 14-11-1998 and the writ petition was Hied on 8-12-1998 inter alia challenging (he award of the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that since no opportunity of hearing under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act was given and no notice was served on the petitioners the acquisition suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and violation of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. We are of the considered view that inspite of the best efforts from 1990 to construct a bridge and the diversion canal, on one technical ground or the other the State failed to achieve the object. Mere again the land in dispute having been acquired in 1993 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act having been later issued on 27-8-1993 the petitioners never challenged the same. It is only after the final award which vested the property in the State free from all encumbrances that the petitioners intend to challenge the procedural irregularities, if any, in the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. We are of the considered view that for such a paltry extent of land when a large track of land has been acquired, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the acquisition of the land when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was duly published in various newspapers as stated in the counter-affidavit. Mere non-mentioning of the name, even if assumed to be correct, is of no consequence. The petitioners cannot be assumed that they do not know that their land was being acquired especially when the petitioner No.2 was a party to the previous Us. It is reasonable to infer in ordinary human course of conduct that all the petitioners know of the acquisition. Mere non-mentioning of the name will not render the notification void. Otherwise too, the writ suffers from laches of almost five years. !t is not a case where substantial injustice was done to the petitioners. A small extent of agricultural land of 0.54 cents which is stated to be about 2,000 square yards of each petitioner was acquired for the purpose of diversion of the canal which serves the larger public purpose.
3. In view of the observations made above, we find no ground to interfere, in exercise of the writ juris-direction, with the impugned notification apart from the fact that the same acquisition came for consideration in Writ Petition No.2156 of 1998, decided on 19-1-1998, and the acquisition was held to be for the public purpose and for the benefit of the people. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for trifles (de Minimis non Curat Lex).
4. Hence the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.S,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to be deposited to the credit of the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.