Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 1444
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
Church Missionary Society, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
W.P.No.21908/03
Decided On : 12-02-03
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.P. Venugopal,Mr.R. Subba Rao,Mr.Srinivas Reddy,Mr.P. Govind Reddy,Mr.ML Ali
Headnote:LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Secs.4(1),5-A,6 & 17 - Part-VII of Act Secs.40,41 & 42 - Acquisition of land for benefit of private limited Company - Contention that land needed for benefit of private Company and machinery of State had invoked its eminent domain to advance interest of such Company without following procedure prescribed under Part-VII of Act and as such acquisition is tainted with vice of colourable exercise of power - Once land is acquired for benefit of Company, mere lending of name of APIIC does not render acquisition proceedings valid.
“Concept of colourable exercise of power” - Stated - In the present case initial notification discloses purpose to be for private Company, though subsequently rectified by issuing errata - Purpose underlying acquisition is for benefit of Company and hence impugned notifications are tainted with vice of colourable exercise of power.
Power to dispense with enquiry u/Sec.5-A cannot be permitted to be invoked as a matter of course and at whims and fancies of agencies for which land is proposed to be acquired or acquisitioning authority himself - In the present case invocation of Sec.17 and dispensing with enquiry
u/Sec.5-A, not justified - Impugned proceedings, set aside - Writ petition allowed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the notification issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) published on 29-9-2003 and the other proceedings pursuant thereto. Through the said notification, the 2nd respondent proposed to acquire an extent of Ac. 22. 85 cents in Sy. No. 3/lb of pinapaka Village, G. Konduru Mandal, krishna District. The petitioner claims that it had acquired the land referred to above several decades ago, and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner alleges that the land is sought to be acquired for the benefit of M/s. G. V. K. Group of industries, a private limited company (for short the Company ).
( 2 ) PETITIONER contends that it is impermissible for respondents 1 to 3 to acquire the land for the benefit of a private company, without following the procedure prescribed under Part VII of the Act. It alleges that one of the requirements in this regard is that the agreement entered into between the Government, on one hand, and the Company for whose benefit the land is acquired, on the other, has to be published in the official Gazette, as required under section 42 of the Act. It is alleged that no such publication has been made. The petitioner also challenges the action of respondents 1 to 3 in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5a of the Act.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, errata has been issued by the 2nd respondent, to the effect that the land is required for the benefit of A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, hyderabad, the 4th respondent. Challenge is made to the said errata also, by alleging that an effort is made by respondents 1 to 3 to justify an otherwise unsustainable action. It is stated that once the land is acquired for the benefit of the Company, mere lending the name of the 4th respondent does not render the proceedings valid.
( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the land was initially sought to be acquired for the benefit of M/s. Bharat Petroleum corporation Limited, for establishing an industry. It is alleged that since they did not evince further interest, the 4th respondent has come forward to establish an industrial park in the land. An extent of Ac. 28. 35 cents is said to have been identified and that the present acquisition is confined to ac. 22. 85 cents. Several contentions are advanced as regards the entitlement of the petitioner and certain internal disputes between various organizations. The allegation that the land is acquired exclusively for the benefit of the Company is disputed. It is stated that mentioning the name of the Company in the Notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act is a mistake and the same has been rectified by issuing errata. They contend that at once the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the 4th respondent, which is a government Company, the question of following the procedure prescribed under part VII of the Act, particularly, the one under Sections 40, 41 and 42, does not arise. The enquiry under Section 5-A is said to have been dispensed with, on account of the urgency involved in the matter.
( 5 ) SIMILAR contentions are raised on behalf of respondent No. 4 and other respondents, who have supported the acquisition.
( 6 ) RESPONDENTS 5 to 8, who got themselves impleaded, challenged the acquisition on the same grounds, as did the writ petitioner.
( 7 ) SRI P. Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that acquisition in question is in colorable exercise of power. He submits that, in clear terms, the 2nd respondent issued notifications under sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, stating that the land is being acquired for the benefit of the Company, and still the procedure prescribed under Part VII of the Act was not followed. He submits that an attempt was made to justify the acquisition by issuing errata. According to him, once the basic and in
