Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MADHAVA RAO, RAGHUVIR SRIRAMULU
Inabathini Subbarao - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-19-78
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPENSATION - COMPANY - ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY - ACQUISITION FOR CORPORATION - NO PART OF COMPENSATION FROM PUBLIC REVENUES - PROVISIONS OF PART VII OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT NOT COMPLIED WITH - ACQUISITION BAD.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) proposed to acquire land for the construction of a bus depot and station. The land was owned by the petitioners, who objected to the acquisition. The Sub-Collector, Ongole, conducted an inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and proposed to eliminate certain lands from acquisition. However, the Collector, Ongole, instructed the Sub-Collector to include the lands in the draft declaration. The Government approved the declaration and published it in the Gazette. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings on the grounds that (1) there was no compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act as no compensation was sought to be paid wholly or partly from the public revenues; and (2) the District Collector had no power to alter the draft declaration prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Officer after the inquiry under section 5-A of the Act was concluded.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the APSRTC was a company as defined under the Act and that the acquisition was for the benefit of the company. Since no part of the compensation was to come from the public revenues and the provisions of Part VII of the Act were not followed, the acquisition was bad.
Issues: 1. Whether the APSRTC was a company as defined under the Act. 2. Whether the acquisition was for the benefit of the company. 3. Whether any part of the compensation was to come from the public revenues. 4. Whether the provisions of Part VII of the Act were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Valjibhai v. State of Bombay, which held that the Bombay Road Transport Corporation, which was similar to the APSRTC, was a company as defined under the Act. The court also held that the acquisition was for the benefit of the company, as the compensation was to be paid wholly by the company. Further, the court held that no part of the compensation was to come from the public revenues, as the funds of the APSRTC were not public revenue. Finally, the court held that the provisions of Part VII of the Act were not followed, as the acquisition was not made under the provisions of that Part.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing of the notifications one under section 4 dated 5th december, 1974 and the other under section 6 dated 8th September, 1977 of the Land acquisition Act I of 1894 (hereinafter called the Act ) in respect of T. S. Nos 10/2c and 10/3 of Ongole mainly on the following grounds : (1) There was no compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Act as no compensation was sought to be paid wholly or partly from the public revenues; and (2) the District Collector has no power to alter the draft declaration prepared and signed by the Land Acquisition Officer after the inquiry under section 5-A of the act was concluded.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the above contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The petitioners, 12 in number are persons owning residential house in t. S. Nos. 10/2c and 10/3 of Ongole town about 12 years ago the Government constructed for the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation. ) a bus-stand and a work shop and Road Transport Corporation Quarters in T. S. No. 14 which was a tank poramboke without the necessity of spendine any public funds The bus-stand is abutting the patta lands of the petitioners on the rear side. On all three sides of bus-stand there is government land for extension. Due to the construction of the bus-stand the petitioners were compelled to raise the level of the patta lands to the road level and they did it by spending huge amount and constructed residential houses. The 1st petitioner constructed a saw-mill at a considerable cost of rs. 60,000. The constructions raised by the other petitioners were also narrated in the writ petition. The Government then issued a notification on 5th December, 1974 under section 4 (1) of the Act stating that Ac.-128166 square feet in T. S. No. 10/2c, Ac. O. 4356 square feet in T. S. No. 10/3 and Ac. 3-11639 in T. S. No. 11/1 were being acquired for public purpose for construction of Road transport Corporation Bus Depot and station. The Sub-Collector, Ongole was directed to perform the functions of the collector under section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners filed objections to the notices issued under section 5-A of the Act. Apart from the objections, they requested to drop the proposals. The Sub-Collector after examining the situation ordered that the built up area in T. S. Nos. 10/2c and 10/3 shall be excluded as it would cause heavy injury to the petitioners particularly when the required site a available on the other three sides, which could be used without spending any public funds. The Road Transport Corporation proposed to beautify the depot and insisted on the inclusion of the built up area also. Accordingly a declaration was made under section 6 (1) of the Act including the built up area and the same was published in the Gazette on 8th September, 1977. The petitioners stated that when the acquisition of the land was for purposes of the corporation the Government is bound to conduct an inquiry under section 40 of the Act and since no such inquiry was held the proceedings are vitiated. It is also pointed out that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act do not disclose that the Government contributed from the public funds for the proposed acquisition and the failure to do so makes the proceedings illegal and void.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent a counter- affidavit is filed. It is admitted that while spending the draft declaration the Sub-Collector, Ongole inspected the lands and proposed to eliminate Ac. O-37206 square feet in T. S. No. 10/2c on the eastern side covered by some semi-permanent constructions and also Ac. O. 4356 square feet in t. S. No. 10/3. Thus he sent the draft declaration on 15th December, 1976 to the collector, Ongole, along with the withdrawal notification in respect of the eliminated ex
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
