T. MEENA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refrain from acquiring the petitioner s land in S. Nos. 46/2 and 46/3 of Tsundur Village and Mandal, Guntur District by declaring the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") proposing to acquire the petitioner s land of Ac. 0. 60 cents in S. No. 46/ 2 and Ac. 0. 29 cents in S. No. 46/3 of tsundur Village and Mandal, Guntur District, published in Guntur District Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 1. 2. 1992 as illegal, null and void.

( 2 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land measuring ac. 1. 20 cents in S. Nos. 46/2 and 46/3 to a total extent of being Ac. 1. 10 cents of tsundur Village. He has been using the said land for agricultural purposes. While so, the first respondent herein issued a notification dated 1. 2. 1992 proposing to acquire Ac. 2. 00 of land in S. No. 46/1, 2 and 3 of Tsunduru Village to be used for burial ground to Tsundur Harijans, belonging to the petitioner and one Padala satyanaraya. The notification was published in a local newspaper on 8. 2. 1992 to the effect that an extent of Ac. 0. 28 cents and Ac. 0. 29 cents in S. No. 46/2 and in s. No. 46/3 respectively, is proposed to acquire. Immediately the petitioner got issued a legal notice on 15. 2. 1992 to the respondents by raising his objections. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent in pursuant to the notice dated 24. 2. 1992 under Section 5-A of the Act issued by him and placed his objections.

( 3 ) THIS Court while admitting the writ petition on 21. 7. 1992 granted interim stay of dispossession pending further orders.

( 4 ) THE respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition. It is the contention of the respondents that there was no earmarked burial ground to the Scheduled Castes of the village. The scheduled castes were using the land in sy. No. 72/3 which is classified as Donka as burial ground. As the existing Donka poramboke was completely used up, the harijans represented to the Collector to provide a suitable burial place. The land of the petitioner was acquired as there was no other available land. After the approval of the draft by the Collector, the notification was published in the District Gazette extraordinary local No. VI, dated 1. 2. 1992 at page No. l to an extent of Ac. 2. 00 in sy. No. 46/1, 2 and 3. The draft notification was also published in local newspapers on 8. 2. 1992. Notices under Section 5 (1) of the act inviting objections to the proposed acquisition was issued on 24. 2. 1992. The petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity during the enquiry under the act. After conducting the enquiry under section 5-A, necessary report has been submitted to the Collector and accordingly, the Collector approved the draft declaration. When the enquiry into the award was posted to 27. 7. 1992, meanwhile the petitioner approached the Hon ble Court and obtained interim orders on 21. 7. 1992.

( 5 ) WHEN the vacate stay petition has come up for hearing, none appeared for the vacate petitioners and hence the petition was dismissed and the matter posted for final hearing.

( 6 ) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Act contemplates issuance of Section 6 declaration within one year from the date of Gazette Notification after completing 5-A enquiry. But, so far, section 6 declaration has not been published and, as such issuance of notices under sections 9 (1) and 10 is bad and contrary to the provisions and, hence, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of land shall stand lapsed. It is also argued that after the coming into force of the amended Act of 1984, the award has to be made within a period of two years. It is also further argued that this Court has granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner but not stayed further proceedings under the Act and hence it cannot be construed that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document