Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.BHASKARAN, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
Shairkhan Mohd.Abdullah - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 11-17-86
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - LIST OF INTENDED ALLOTTEES - MADRAS G. O. - ENFORCEABILITY - ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS - LEGAL RIGHTS - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the government for acquiring his land for providing house-sites to the weaker sections. The appellant contended that the proceedings were illegal as the list of intended allottees of house-sites was not given as part of the notification under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as required by a Government Order (Madras G. O.).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Madras G. O. was in the nature of a departmental instruction and did not confer any legal or justiciable right on the land-owners. The purpose of the instruction was to gather necessary data for the effective implementation of welfare schemes. The failure to comply with the Government Order did not amount to the violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 4(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madras G. O. conferred any legal or justiciable right on the land-owners. 2. Whether the failure to comply with the Madras G. O. amounted to the violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Administrative instructions or executive directions, as contained in the Madras G. O., could not be elevated to the status of statutory rules or constitutional mandate. 2. Generally speaking, administrative orders do not confer justiciable rights, but there are exceptions to that rule. 3. The Madras G. O. was in the nature of a departmental instruction, the dominant purpose of which was not to confer any legal or justiciable right on the land-owners. 4. The object of the instruction was for the departmental authorities to gather the necessary data for the effective implementation of the welfare schemes. 5. The failure to comply with the Government Order, in effect and substance, did not amount to the violation of the statutory provisions contained in S. 4 (1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the land acquisition proceedings were not illegal and that the appellant had not been prejudiced by the failure to comply with the Madras G. O.
( 2 ) IN the memorandum of appeal, the appellant-petitioner is seen to have raised a ground that the points left open to be raised before the Land Acquisition Officer sought to have been decided by the learned single Judge himself. What, however, was pressed and argued at considerable length before us was Ground No. 15, which was not taken either before the Land Acquisition Officer or even in the writ petition, which reads as follows :-"the learned Judge ought to have seen that the land acquisition proceedings have to be quashed on the ground that the list of intended allottees of house-sites has not been given as part of Sec. 4 (1) notification or Sec. 6 declaration as decided by this Honourable Court". The inspiration for raising this contention for the first time in appeal, which was filed on 10-6-1986, appears to have been derived from the observations in Sreeramachandra Raju s case (1986) 1 APLJ 250, which was decided by a learned single Judge of this Court on 16-1-1986. Objection to the appellant-petitioner urging this ground. for the first time in appeal was taken by the respondents. We have, however, heard the counsel for the appellant on this point, it being the only point seriously urged before us during the course of the hearing of the appeal; and it was submitted that it was purely a question of law, inasmuch as the failure to give the list of intended allottees of house-sites as part of S. 4 (1) notification or S. 6 declaration according to the appellant, vitiated the whole proceedings as it was opposed to the procedure prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 472, Revenue, dated 22nd February, 1938, issued by the Madras Government ( the Madras G. O. for brevity), which the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to follow. The Madras G. O. reads as follows :-"when land is required for providing house sites for members of the scheduled castes or other labouring classes or of a co-operative society, the names of the members to whom it is intended to assign the land when acquired should be given in the notice issued under Sections 4 (1) and 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each. Informa
AI
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
