Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sri Srinivasa Paper And Board Mills ... vs The Govt. Of A.P. Rep. By The Principal ... on 22 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(3)ALT538
JUDGMENT Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the notification dated 8-6-1988 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration dated 8-6-1988 issue under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of expansion of bus-stand complex, Tirupathi.
2. The facts of the cases are that the petitioner in W.P.No. 838/90 is the owner of an extent of 0-45 cents in R.S.No. 623/1D, that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12450/88 is the owner of an extent of 0-20 cents in S.No. 27/2-A, that the petitioners in W.P.No. 12919/88 are the owners of an extent of Ac. 2-20 cents in R.S.No. 623/1-A and the petitioner in W.P. No. 13631/88 is the owner of an extent of Ac.1-54 cents in R.S.No. 623/1-D situated at Tirupathi Village. The above said lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of expansion of bus-stand complex at Tirupathi. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 8-6-1988 and they were published in Telugu Daily newspaper 'Eenadu' on 17-7-1988 and 20-7-1988 respectively. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved in G.O.Rt. No. 510 dated 8-6-1988 and was published in Gazette on 18-7-1988. The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 28-7-1988.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as per the scheme of the Amended Act after publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and completion of requirements of Section 4(1), the declaration under Section 6 has to be published, that in the present cases even according to the counter affidavit, the substance of notification under Section 4(1) was published in the locality on 28-7-1988, whereas the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8-7-1988 i.e., before compliance of requirements of Section 4 and that therefore the same is bad. It is further contended that all these lands were sought to be acquired earlier in 1976-77 and when notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, no proceedings were taken thereafter and the notification lapsed, that again present notification was issued without following the mandatory provisions of the Act.
4. The respondents filed counter affidavit in common in all the Writ Petitions stating that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are legally valid as the substance of which was published in the locality on 28-7-1988, that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Gazette on 8-7-1988 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 11-7-1988 and prayed to uphold the notification and declaration and dismiss the Writ Petitions.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are valid or not.
6. As stated supra, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 8-6-1988 and the same was published in the Gazette on 8-7-1988, whereas the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 28-7-1988, even according to the counter. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved on 8-6-1988 and the same was published in the Gazette on 11-7-1988. Thus, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published even before the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act are complied with and therefore, mandatory provisions of the Act are violated.
7. With regard to the facts in W.P.No. 12450/88 the land acquired was 0-20 cents and the said land was sought to be acquired in 1976. Therefore, the petitioner made representations to the authorities and the Executive Engineer inspected the plot and recommended that no more land is required for the Road Transport Corporation and the same may be deleted. The petitioner made a further representation on 8-11-1978 to the Executive Engineer to deliver back possession. The Executive Engineer through his letter dated 24-6-1981 directed the Tahsildar to deliver possession and a copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner came into possession of the land and thereafter constructed a building in an area of 10 cents and the remaining land is used by the petitioner for other purposes for enjoyment of the said building. Now the present notification is issued without mentioning the existence of the building and that itself shows that the authorities have not applied the mind.
8. The learned Government pleader contended that possession of the land was taken in 1976 and the building is unauthorisedly constructed. It is to be noticed that if the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed the building, it is not shown whether any notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, we are not able to accede to the contention of the learned Government Pleader. As stated supra, in this case, the requirement of Section 4(1) before publication of Section 6 declaration was not complied with and therefore the proceedings are vitiated.
9. The learned Government pleader further contended that if the declaration under Section 6 is bad, it can be quashed and there is no necessity to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. According to the proviso of Section 6 of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 has to be published within one year from the date of notification under Section 4(1). If we quash the declaration under Section 6 by keeping the notification under Section 4(1) as it is, the Government will not be able to publish the declaration under Section 6 as one year time has elapsed long back: Further the decision of this Court in Smt. B. Krishnaveni v. State of A.P., 1989 (2) APLJ 70 (SN) and G. Krishna Reddy v. Dist. Collector Hyderabad, 1988 (1) APLJ 202 fortify our view that when Section 6 declaration is quashed and the time of one year is not available for publishing it again, Section 4(1) notification has to be quashed.
10. The writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs.