Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI
R.D.Chand - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-06-62
LAND ACQUISITION - URGENCY - DISPENSING WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 5-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR COMPANIES - AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 40 AND 41 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT - VALIDATION OF ACQUISITIONS MADE BEFORE THE AMENDMENT - PUBLIC PURPOSE - BONA FIDE EXERCISE OF POWER - ESTOPPEL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of certain lands in Balanagar and Kazigadda, Hyderabad West Taluk, Hyderabad District, challenged the validity of two notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of their lands for the establishment of Jay Engineering Factories. The petitioners contended that dispensing with the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was not warranted on the facts of the case, and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government was justified in dispensing with the application of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act in view of the urgency of the case, as the company had been granted a license by the Government of India to establish a new industrial undertaking within a period of 12 months, and the factory had to be set up immediately and had to go into production within one year from the date of the grant of the license. The court also held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, as the company was engaged in the manufacture of machines which were in short supply in the country and which had to be exported from foreign countries. The court further held that the acquisition was not bona fide and that the exercise of the power was not a colourable one.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government was justified in dispensing with the application of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the urgency of the case? 2. Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose? 3. Whether the acquisition was bona fide and the exercise of the power was not a colourable one?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Government was justified in dispensing with the application of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act in view of the urgency of the case, as the company had been granted a license by the Government of India to establish a new industrial undertaking within a period of 12 months, and the factory had to be set up immediately and had to go into production within one year from the date of the grant of the license. 2. The court held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, as the company was engaged in the manufacture of machines which were in short supply in the country and which had to be exported from foreign countries. 3. The court held that the acquisition was not bona fide and that the exercise of the power was not a colourable one.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are two of the owners of certain lands in the village of Balanagar and Kazigadda, Hyderabad West Taluk, Hyderabad District.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 411/62 is the owner of the property bearing S. Nos. 25 to 30 of the total extent of Ac. 97. 30 guntas. The petitioner in the other two writ petitions is the owner of Serial Nos. 3 to 9, 10/1, 10/2, 11, 12/1 and 12/2 of the extent of Ac. 143-30 guntas. The rst respondent in the writ petitions is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to the Government, Industries Department. The 2nd respondent is the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad. The 3rd respondent is M/s. Jay Engineering Works Limited. The ist respondent issued G. O. Rt. No. 124 Industries, dated 19-5-1961 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 22-5-1961 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 notifying that it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the lands specified in the said notification are needed for a public purpose, to wit, for establishment of Jay Engineering Factories. The said notification authorised the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) to exercise the powers conferred by Section 4 (2) of the Act. The notification further stated that under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh directs that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition of the arable lands specified in the notification. This notification is numbered as 84-A. On the same date, another notification No. 84-B was issued with respect to six guntas in Dry S. No. 26 (One house) belonging to Abdul Khader Razvi along with one house, who is the petitioner in W. P. No. 411/62. Since this property is not arable land, the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad is appointed to perform the functions of Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. This was followed up by the notification, G. O. Rt. No. 178, Industries, D/_- 1/07/1961 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands described in the said notification measuring about Ac. 219-00 are needed for a public purpose to wit, for establishment of Jay Engineering Factories for manufacturing sewing machines and other engineering products. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Hyderabad District was appointed to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act and was directed to take order for the acquisition of the said lands and under Subsection (i) of Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh further directed that the possession of the said lands may be taken on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of the publication of the notification of the notice mentioned in Section 9 (1) of the Act. The validity of these two notifications is in question in these writ petitions.
( 3 ) IT is first contended by Mr. Balaparames-wari Rao, the learned counsel; who argued the writ petitions for the petitioners that dispensing with the notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not warranted on the facts of this case. The acquisition of the immoveable property in this case is for a Company i. e. Jay Engineering Works Limited. The notification, though it states that, in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition of the arable lands specified therein, it does not indicate the reasons for the urgency. Hence, the said notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) of the Act is illegal and has to be quashed. Under the Act, the preliminary notification has to be published under Section 4. Section 5-A Sub-section (i) provided that: "any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, Sub-section (i) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may within thirty days after the is
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
