Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Kilarapu Satyavati - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 01-24-06
Land acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 (1), 6 (1), 5a, 17 - Possession of the property - Bequeathing property - Petitioners claim that the land originally belonged to the father-in-law of the second petitioner, who executed a Will bequeathing property in favour of five children of petitioners 1 and 2, who are in possession of the property. Insofar as the land is concerned, it is the case of the third petitioner that she is the second wife of one and at the time of their marriage, her husband gave the land towards her maintenance. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property by the date of the issue of the notification - Notifications issued under the act are challenged inter alia on the ground that it is not competent for the first respondent to issue notification under section 4 (1) of the Act, that the District collector has no power to issue notification for the purpose of acquiring the land for establishment of compost yard and that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5a of the Act is illegal and arbitrary - Held, no award is passed acquiring the land, sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act enumerates few situations where the urgency can be presumed. But Section 17 (2) of the Act is not exhaustive. Section 17 (2) (b) (ii) (a) of the Act is to the effect that whenever in the opinion of the Collector it becomes necessary to acquire immediate possession of any land for construction or extension or improvement of any structure for the common use of the inhabitants, he may acquire the immediate possession of the land. As explained in the counter-affidavit by the respondents, the existing compost yard in the middle town is already filled and any further dumping of the urban waste would cause health and hygienic problems. In a considered opinion of this Court, there is a real urgency for invoking sub-section (4) of Section 17. The power was exercised validly and no exception can be taken for that action. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in the two above cited decisions, it is the subjective satisfaction of the acquiring authority that matters while invoking urgency clause in sub-section (4) and the point on the question of urgency cannot be stretched too far to replace satisfaction of the acquiring authority by Courts satisfaction - Writ petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
( 2 ) THE petitioners claim that the land in survey Nos. 218/3 and 218/4 originally belonged to the father-in-law of the second petitioner, who executed a Will on 10. 7. 1999 bequeathing property in favour of five children of petitioners 1 and 2, who are in possession of the property. Insofar as the land in survey No. 219/2 is concerned, it is the case of the third petitioner that she is the second wife of one Karri Veera raghava Reddy and at the time of their marriage, her husband gave the land towards her maintenance. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property by the date of the issue of the notification.
( 3 ) THE notifications issued under the act are challenged inter alia on the ground that it is not competent for the first respondent to issue notification under section 4 (1) of the Act, that the District collector has no power to issue notification for the purpose of acquiring the land for establishment of compost yard and that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5a of the Act is illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended that the proceedings under the act was initiated only due to extraneous considerations and due to interference of political people, who are enemically disposed of towards the petitioners.
( 4 ) AT the stage of admission itself, the second respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, opposing the writ petition. The summary of the same is as follows. The Municipal Commissioner, ramachandrapuram submitted a requisition for acquisition of land in an extent of Acs. 3. 05 in R. S. No. 218/3 of Ramachandrapuram for establishment of compost yard of the municipality. The second respondent inspected the land and submitted proposals to the first respondent for approval of the draft notification invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act and also draft declaration. The draft declaration has been published in the A. P. Gazette of East godavari on 18. 11. 2005, and in Telugu newspapers on 24. 11. 2005 and English newspapers on 22. 11. 2005. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 3. 12. 2005. The draft declaration was published in the A. P. Gazette of East godavari District on 23. 11. 2005 and also published in the Newspapers as well as in the locality. The second respondent also issued notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act and Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the act dated 7. 12. 2005 to all the land owners and persons interested to attend the award enquiry on 23. 11. 2005. The Government of andhra Pradesh by orders made in G. O. Ms. No. 1131 (Revenue (K) Department dated 17. 7. 1986 delegated the powers to district Collectors for acquisition of land on behalf of Municipalities in the State for all the purposes under Sections 4, 5a, 6 and 17 (4) of the Act. In view of the same, the notifications issued by the District Collector under Section 4 (1) and declaration under section 6 of the Act are legal and do not suffer from want of jurisdiction. The existing compost yard is situated in the heart of the city and is already fill
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
