Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
Vengala Pakeera Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 02-07-89
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - COMPETENCY OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR - DELEGATION OF POWERS - PUBLIC PURPOSE - PROFIT MOTIVE - WHOLESALE ACQUISITION - AVAILABILITY OF GOVERNMENT LAND - DISCRIMINATION - REDUCTION IN ACQUISITION AREA - SECTION 5-A ENQUIRY - SMALL FARMERS - REHABILITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (L. A. Act) for the acquisition of 102-63 cents of land in Koritipadu village for the development of plots by the Urban Development Authority (UDA). They raised seven contentions, including the competency of the District Collector to issue the notification, the presence of profit motive, the necessity of wholesale acquisition, the availability of government land, discrimination, reduction in acquisition area, and the validity of the Section 5-A enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
1. The District Collector was competent to issue the notification under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act as the power had been delegated to him by the Government under Section 3-A of the Act and G. O. Ms. No. 4288 dated 11-9-1980. 2. The acquisition was for a public purpose, as the land was to be developed into plots and allotted to the needy public. The element of profit motive, if any, did not affect the public purpose. 3. The wholesale acquisition of land was necessary for the scheme and the Court could not go into the adequacy or inadequacy of the scheme. 4. The availability of government land did not preclude the acquisition of private land, as the scheme required a sizable block of land. 5. There was no discrimination in the acquisition, as the land belonging to the petitioners was considered suitable for the public purpose. 6. The reduction in the acquisition area from 123-31 cents to 102-63 cents was based on due survey, enquiry, and exigencies, and did not show favoritism. 7. The Section 5-A enquiry was conducted properly, with due notice and opportunity given to the petitioners. 8. The petitioners, as small farmers, would be entitled to the benefits under Section 19 (2) of the Urban Areas Act, which provides for the allotment of suitable accommodation to persons whose land is acquired.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector was competent to issue the notification under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act. 2. Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose, considering the element of profit motive. 3. Whether the wholesale acquisition of land was necessary. 4. Whether the availability of government land precluded the acquisition of private land. 5. Whether there was discrimination in the acquisition. 6. Whether the reduction in the acquisition area showed favoritism. 7. Whether the Section 5-A enquiry was conducted properly. 8. Whether the petitioners, as small farmers, were entitled to rehabilitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to issue the notification under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act had been delegated to the District Collector by the Government under Section 3-A of the Act and G. O. Ms. No. 4288 dated 11-9-1980. 2. The acquisition was for a public purpose, as the land was to be developed into plots and allotted to the needy public. The element of profit motive, if any, did not affect the public purpose. 3. The wholesale acquisition of land was necessary for the scheme and the Court could not go into the adequacy or inadequacy of the scheme. 4. The availability of government land did not preclude the acquisition of private land, as the scheme required a sizable block of land. 5. There was no discrimination in the acquisition, as the land belonging to the petitioners was considered suitable for the public purpose. 6. The reduction in the acquisition area from 123-31 cents to 102-63 cents was based on due survey, enquiry, and exigencies, and did not show favoritism. 7. The Section 5-A enquiry was conducted properly, with due notice and opportunity given to the petitioners. 8. The petitioners, as small farmers, would be entitled to the benefits under Section 19 (2) of the Urban Areas Act, which provides for the allotment of suitable accommodation to persons whose land is acquired.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) COMMON points arise in all these writ petitions and therefore,they could be disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) AN area of Ac. 102-63 cents of land in Koritipadu village hasbeen acquired, by way of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act (for short l. A. Act ) dated 15-9-1986, for the purpose of development of the same into plots by the Urban Development Authority, the 3rd respondent herein, and for allotment of the same for construction of the houses. That is the subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions.
( 3 ) SEVEN contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioners by Sriv. L. N. G. K. Murthy : (1) The notification so issued under Section 4 (1) of the L. A Act has to be quashed since the Collector is not competent to issue the same, as it has to be issued by the Government, which has been admittedly for the benefit of the Urban Development Authority. (2) The acquisition is with a profit motive and so, it is a fraud on power (3) The wholesale acquisition of the land comprising Ac, 102-63 cents is not necessary. (4) There are Government lands in an extent of 100 acres leased out to a church and since the lease is expired, the lands could have been utilised, rendering thereby the acquisition unnecessary (5) Initially an extent of Ac. 123-31 cents of lands was proposed for acquisition, which is later reduced to Ac. 102-63 cents by deleting the land and thereby showing favour in favour of some of the land owners. (6) The report under Section 5-A of the L. A. Act has not been sent to the Government for its approval, as it has been finalised only by the District Collector and so, it is bad. (7) The enquiry under Section 5-A of the L. A. Act is a mere farce and is not proper.
( 4 ) THE first contention is based on the language of Section 18 of thea. P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as urban Areas Act ). Hence, the contents of the same be set out straight way. 18. Compulsory acquisition of land : (1) If, in the opinion of the Governnent, any land is acquired for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act the Government may acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. "
( 5 ) SECTION 56 (2) of the aforesaid Act also may be set out:"56 (2 ). The Government may by notification, direct that any power exercisable by them under this Act, except the power to make rules, may also be exercised by such officer as may be mentioned therein, in such cases and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified therein. "
( 6 ) BEFORE analysis. Section 3-A of the L. A Act, which was broughtin by Amendment Act 22 of 1976, may be read : "3-A. Delegations of functions :the State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on them by this Act, shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercised or discharged by the District Collector. "
( 7 ) THE notification sssued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 4288revenue (K) Dep-t. , dated 11-9-1980 reads :"in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3-A of the Land acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894), the Governor of andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the District Collectors of visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Krishna, Guntur, Hyderabad, Medak and ranga Reddy districts shall in their respective jurisdiction exercise all the powers conferred any discharged all the duties imposed on the state Government under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act in their respective jurisdiction for the purpose of acquistion of land for construction and improvement of houses and other developmental purposes undertaken, by the visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada Gunlur, tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Develpment Authority and the Hyderabad urban Development Authority. "
( 8 ) THE contention
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
