Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Gowri Bheemappa - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-27-79
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATION - DELAY IN PUBLICATION - EFFECT - SECTION 4 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - RULE 1 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION RULES, 1963 - INTERPRETATION - URGENCY OF THE CASE - DISPENSING WITH ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 5-A - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands for a public purpose, alleging that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not published in the village immediately after its publication in the Gazette, as required by Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1963. They also contended that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with without any urgency.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in publishing the notification in the village was not justified and that the requirements of Section 4 (1) of the Act regarding publication in the locality had not been complied with. The court also held that the enquiry under Section 5-A ought not to have been dispensed with in the absence of any urgency.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in publishing the notification in the village was justified? 2. Whether the enquiry under Section 5-A ought to have been dispensed with in the absence of any urgency?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 to mean that the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be published in the village immediately after its publication in the Gazette. The court held that the delay in publishing the notification in the village in the present case was not justified, as there was no valid explanation for such a long delay. 2. The court held that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should not have been dispensed with in the absence of any urgency. The court observed that the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another situation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
( 1 ) BY a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 21- 7- 1978 which was published in the Gazette on 17- 8- 1978 Lands in survey Nos. 5 to 9, 11 and 12 of varying extents in Shaipur village Tandur Taluk, \rangareddy District were acquired for a public purpose viz. , for providing house- sites to scheduled castes Backward class, scheduled Tribes and other landless workers, By the same notification, it was directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of section 5- A of the Act will not apply to the case. The petitioner in writ petition No, 2762 of 1979 is the owner of 5 acres, guntas in Survey No. 6, which according to him has been wrongly shown as 5 acres 3 guntas in the notification. He is also the owner of Survey Nos. 9/a, 9aa/, 9/c, 9/cc of an extent of 2 acres, 20 guntas. He filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the acquisition of the lands belonging to him. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2868 of 1979 is the owner of 12 acres, 20 guntas in survey No. 6 and 14 acres, 5 guntas in survey no. 7 He also prays that a write-off mandamus may be issued directing the authorities not to proceed with the acquisition of the lands belonging to him. The notification under section 4 was followed by a notification under Sec. 6 of the Act on the same day. Though the notification under Section 4 was published in the gazette on 20- 7- 1978, it was published in the village only on 16-1-1979.
( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner in writ petition No. 2762 of 1979 is that under section 4 (1) of the Act read with R. 1 of the rules framed under the Act, a copy of the notification should be published in the village immediately, but nearly six months after the publication of the notification in the Gazette, the notification under Sec. 4 (1) as well as the subsequent proceedings for acquisition are illegal. It is further contended that the requirements for dispensing with the enquiry under section 5- A are not satisfied as there is no urgency. The petitioner in writ petition No 2868 of 1979 challenges the acquisition proceedings also on the ground of mala fides. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to a minority community having no support from the pulling party and therefore he was discriminated against and made a target of victimization.
( 3 ) NO sufficient material has been placed before us to justify the plea of mal fide by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2868 of 1979, we, therefore, see no ground for quahinh the notification on that ground.
( 4 ) TURNING to the contention based upon R. 1 of the Rules framed under the Act, in reply to the contention that the substance of the notification was not published in the village immediately after it was published in the Gazette, it is submitted on behalf of the government that the delay in publishing the notice was justified in the circumstances of the case. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader that though R. 1 requires that the notification should be published in the village immediately after the publication in the Gazette, there may be circumstances in which it is not possible to do so. It depends upon the facts of each case as to whether the publication of the notification in the village within a few days after the publication of the same in the Gazette can be said to be a publication made immediately or not within the meaning of the Rule. In this case, it was pointed out that the petitioner in Writ Petition 2868 of 1979 filed a suit O. S. 65 of 1978 D. M. C. , Tandur, on the 7th of September, 1978, for an injunction restraining the Government from interfering with his possession. This suit was proceeded by a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. given on 10-7-1078. The suit was ultimately withdrawn on 14--12-1978. The authorities did not publish the notification in the village in view of the pendency of the suit. Soon after the suit was withdra
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
