The declaration under Section 6(1) and the publication under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act are distinct steps, and the declaration must be made before the publication. The emergency power under Section 17(4) allows the Government to dispense with the Section 5-A procedure but does not exempt it from making the declaration under Section 6(1).

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6(1) AND PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION 6(2) - DISTINCTION - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - SECTION 17(4) - EMERGENCY POWER - SCOPE AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh initiated land acquisition proceedings for the construction of a High School. The High Court had earlier quashed similar proceedings due to the absence of a proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Despite this, the Government issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and invoked the emergency power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the Section 5-A procedure. However, the declaration under Section 6(1) was made before the publication of the preliminary notification, violating the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the declaration under Section 6(1) and the publication under Section 6(2) are distinct steps, and the declaration must be made before the publication. The emergency power under Section 17(4) allows the Government to dispense with the Section 5-A procedure but does not exempt it from making the declaration under Section 6(1). The Government's failure to comply with these mandatory provisions rendered the impugned declaration invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the declaration under Section 6(1) and the publication under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act are distinct steps, and if so, which one should be made first? 2. Whether the emergency power under Section 17(4) exempts the Government from making the declaration under Section 6(1)? 3. Whether the Government's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 6(1) and Section 17(4) invalidates the impugned declaration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and concluded that the declaration under Section 6(1) must be made before the publication under Section 6(2). The declaration is a mandatory step that signifies the Government's satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose. 2. The Court held that the emergency power under Section 17(4) allows the Government to dispense with the procedure prescribed under Section 5-A, but it does not exempt the Government from making the declaration under Section 6(1). The declaration is a separate and essential step that must be taken before the publication of the declaration. 3. The Court found that the Government's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 6(1) and Section 17(4) rendered the impugned declaration invalid. The Government's satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose must be expressed through a declaration made under Section 6(1) before the publication of the declaration under Section 6(2).
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Court clarified that the State Government could make a fresh declaration under Section 6(1), publish it under Section 6(2), and proceed with the requisition of the lands in question in accordance with the law.

REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to and to quash G. O. Rt. No. 806 Education dt. 27/11/1957 purporting to be a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 11/09/1958.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this writ petition are not in controversy and are as follows:-- These land acquisition proceedings relate to the lands bearing Section No. 74/1 of Amzuru village in Ramachandrapuram Taluk, East Godavari District, and have had a long and chequered history. The lands in question are about 5 acres 12 cents in extent out of which the petitioners are the owners of 4 acres and are the lessees of the remaining 1 acre 12 cents. In July, 1951, proceedings were taken by the Government under the Act for the acquisition of the lands on the ground that they were needed for a public purpose viz. , for the construction of a High School building by the East Godavari District Board. The proceedings culminated in the issue of notices under Section 9 of the Act, inviting interested parties to put in their claims to compensation. The petitioners took the matter up to the High Court of Andhra, challenging the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the main ground that an enquiry as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 (c) of the Rules framed under the Act, had not been held. The High Court, in Writ Petition No. 591 of 1952 by an order dated 23/08/1955, quashed the entire proceedings, holding that there had been no proper enquiry.

( 3 ) NOTHING more was done for over two years. Then on the 5/12/1957, the Government of Andhra Pradesh published a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette under Section 4 (1) of the Act, stating that the lands in question were needed for a public purpose, viz. , the construction of a High School building by the East Godavari District Board, and by the same notification, in view of the urgency of the case, under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the Government directed that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. The notification was in the following terms:--"whereas it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the land specified below is needed for a public purpose, to wit, for the construction of a High School building by the East Godavari District Board, notice to that effect is hereby given to all to whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVIII of 1923; and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby authorises the sub-collector, Rajahmundry, his staff and workmen to exercise the powers conferred by Section 4 (2) of the Act. 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 this case. "then followed a description of the land along with the names of the owners and the present enjoyers.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that the above notification appears to have been issued by the Government on the 21/11/1957, that is to say, two weeks before the date of its publication in the Official Gazatte; but that is of little significance because under the Act, the acquisition proceedings are initiated by the publication of a preliminary notification in accordance with the terms of Section 4 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) IT will be noticed that this notification was published in the Official Gazette on the 5/12/1957, and the emergency power under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act was invoked with the result that the provisions of Section 5-A relating to the hearing of objections to the proposed acquisition and an enquiry with regard thereto, were dispensed with.

( 6 ) IT would appear, however, that even befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1960 Supreme(AP) 106

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : BASI REDDINalamaty Venkata Durga Prakasa Rao - AppellantVersusState OF A.P. - RespondentDecided On : 04-13-60

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BASI REDDI
Nalamaty Venkata Durga Prakasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-13-60