The declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds is a mandatory requirement under the proviso to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and must be made before the notification under section 6 is issued.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - APPOINTMENT OF HARIJAN WELFARE OFFICER AS COLLECTOR - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENT OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO CONTRIBUTE PART OF COMPENSATION OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS - NECESSITY - LACHES - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the land acquisition notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that the Harijan Welfare Officer appointed as the Collector was not qualified as per the relevant G.O., and that no declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds was made before the notification under section 6 was issued.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appointment of the Harijan Welfare Officer as the Collector was valid as it was not shown that the officer did not meet the requirements of the relevant G.O. However, the court found that the declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds was not made before the notification under section 6 was issued, which was a mandatory requirement under the proviso to section 6.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the Harijan Welfare Officer as the Collector was valid? 2. Whether the declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds was made before the notification under section 6 was issued?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appointment of the Harijan Welfare Officer as the Collector was valid as it was not shown that the officer did not meet the requirements of the relevant G.O. 2. The court held that the declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds was not made before the notification under section 6 was issued, which was a mandatory requirement under the proviso to section 6.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notification under section 6, but allowed the Government to comply with the provisions of the proviso to section 6 and re-issue the notification as early as possible.

( 1 ) THE land acquisition proceedings involved in this petition relates to a small extent of 25 cents of land covered by S. Nos. 2/1-B and 8 lying in the village of suryaraopeta of Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District. A notification was issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 that the two properties included in the two survey numbers referred to therein, measuring in all Ac. 7-57 situate in that village were needed for a public purpose, namely, providing house sites to the landless labourers, that the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kakinada, was authorised to exercise powers under section 14 (2) of the Act and that the District harijan Welfare Officer was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. Subsequently, the notification under section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 9th May, 1950. These lands which originally belonged to one Peda Venkanna were purchased prior to the notification by a number of persons including the petitioner who bought 23 cents of land in S. No. 2/1-B. As the efforts of the petitioner and the other vendees from the said Venkanna to persuade the Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings proved futile, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The notification is attacked on several grounds, but the main contentions are : firstly, that the Harijan Welfare Officer appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under section 5-A of the Act is not one who fulfils the requirements of the relevant G. O. which lays down that the officer appointed to perform the functions of a Collector should not be below the rank of a Deputy Collector except a District Labour Officer, and, secondly, that no part of the compensation to be awarded for such property was paid by the Government nor a declaration of intention made in that behalf before the issue of the notification under section 6 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds of attack against the notification as they were given up by the counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) AS regards the first point, it is stated in paragraph 8 (c) of the counter-affidavit as follows :- "the appointment of the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kakinada, to perform the functions of the Collector under section 5-A of the Act is legal and is in order. I beg to refer to G. O. Ms. No. 1306, dated 7th June, 1941. " this G. O. is not made a part of the record nor placed before me. However, i may proceed on the assumption that the Government appointed for the purpose of holding an enquiry, an officer who is not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, as it is not likely that they would have appointed one who does not answer to the description, contained in that G. O. The contention of the petitioner, with regard to the requirement of the provisio to section 6, is met in the counter-affidavit of the Collector by stating that "there is no warrant for the assumption that the intention of the Government to contribute a portion of the cost of the acquisition should be manifest ex facie in the notification. "

( 3 ) IT is true that the intention need not appear on the face of the notification it is sufficient if the intention is made manifest prior to the publication of the declaration, but it is absolutely essential that the declaration of intention should precede the notification under section 6. I have discussed a similar question at some length in W. P. No. 944 of 1953 Sree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannatharao v. State of Andhra, unreported decision of this Court in W. P. No. 944 of 1953, dated 20th July, 1955, and said, in agreement with the view of Rajagopalan, J. , in Syed Dilwar Hussain v. Collector of Madras, (1955)1 M. L. J. 306, that although it is not necessary that the deposit of compensation should precede the notification under section 6 or that the declaration need not ex facie show the intention of the Governme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1956 Supreme(AP) 177

Andhra Pradesh High CourtManthina Venkatapathi Raju - AppellantVersusState OF A.P. - RespondentDecided On : 08-30-56

The declaration of intention to contribute part of the compensation out of public funds is a mandatory requirement under the proviso to section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and must be made before the notification under section 6 is issued.

Cases Referred (1)

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Manthina Venkatapathi Raju - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-30-56