Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 1265
Andhra Pradesh High Court
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
R. Veera Raghava Prasad - Appellant
Vs
District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another - Respondent
WP Nos.18881 of 2006 and 1900 of 2007 and Batch
Twenty Eighth Day of December, 2007
Advocate appeared: C Raghu, (Mrs.) K Sesharajyam, Venkata Rongadas Kanuri T. Jagdish, P. Rajasekhar, (Mrs.) Shanthi Neelam, K. Chindambaram, (Mrs.) A. Chqya Devi, v: v:Prabhakara Roo, P. Sri Roghu Rom, (Mrs.) A. Jayanthi, KS. Gopala Krishnan, Ch. Dhanaqya, Mummaneni S rinivasa Roo, Kowtum Vinqya Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioners in the Cases they are concerned; Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Counsel for the Respondent in all the Cases.
Headnote:(A) Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act 2006, Section 3, 3(6) and 7(a)-Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section 4(1)- Initiation of, proceedings for acquiring agricultural lands. Without their conversion for non-agricultural use conditional prohibition contained in Section 3 of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-agricultural purposes) Act 2006 would only apply at the stage when a person, who acquired agricultural land seeks to put the same to non-agricultural use. There is no prohibition on an individual or State to acquire agricultural land with a view to use it for non-agricultural purposes in future. Once State acquires land under provisions of Act of 1894, it becomes owner and it is exempted from provisions of Act, 2006 by virtue of Section 7(a) of said Act-Acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purposes petition dismissed. [Para 25]
(B) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Sections 4(1) and 5A- By virtue of notification issued by State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 822 dated 16.7.1985, Revenue Divisional Officer falls within definition of Collector in Section 3(c) of Act and consequently vested with power to hold enquiry under Section 5A. It is existence of power, which is relevant irrespective of claim of District Collector that he appointed Revenue Divisional Officer to discharge functions of Collector. [Para 33]
(C) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 4(1) and (2)- Non-mentioning of boundaries does not violate scheme of Act-Notifications under Section 4(1) cannot be invalidated on that ground. Until the procedure prescribed for publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) is completed, authorities cannot enter the land and fix up boundaries. [Para 35]
(D) Land Acquisition Act 1894- Section 5A- Issue of notice under Section 55A-Expiry of 30 days from date of publication of notification under Section 4(1). Stipulation of 30 days time in Section 5-A, is the outer limit for a person intending to object to proposed acquisition to file his objections. Said provision does not prevent LAO from issuing a notice to file objections and fix a date for hearing before expiry of 30 days period, if objections received. [Para 47]
(E) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 4(1). There is no statutory prohibition to acquire land used as fish tank for purpose of being used as fish tank. Acquisition proceedings cannot be set aside merely on ground that land proposed to be acquired is being used as fish tank, more so, when as per petitioners own showing if it is leveled up, land can be used for house sites. [Para 48]
(F) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 6. Issue of declaration under Section 6 without communicating any order, rejecting objections sent by petitioners in response to notice under Section 5-A. High Court cannot interdict further proceedings unless petitioners challenge decision of District Collector, rejecting their objections. [Paras 61-65]
(G) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Sections 4 (1) and 5-A. Objection taken to acquisition proceedings on the ground that proposed land chosen from a compact block and that land is not suitable for house sites and that other members of petitioners family, not agreeable to part with land. Objection do not pertain to any legal or jurisdictional aspects, decision on which would be amenable to scrutiny by Court under Article 226 of Constitution. Order rejecting objections, does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction. Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 74,75]
(H) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Sections 4(1) and 5A. Notification under Section 4(1)-Purpose of acquisition, (laying of approach road) does not warrant invocation of urgency clause. Section 5-A affords a valuable opportunity to owners of land to raise their objections to proposed acquisition. Such a valuable right cannot be denied by invoking urgency clause in a casual manner. [Paras 85-87]
(I) Land Acquisition Act 1894-Sections 4(1) and 5-A. Notification under Section 4(1)-Notice under Section 5A issued. Petitioner submitted their objection. Writ petitions filed without waiting for disposal of said objections. Writ petition, wholly premature. As petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in issuance of notification under Section 4(1) or its publication, respondents from initating further steps in pursuance of notification under Section 4(1). [Paras 93-95]
(J) Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Sections 4(1) and 5-A- Object of issuing notification under Section 4(1) is to make all the persons interested in the land to be aware of the proposal to acquire the lands. Even if names of registered owners are not mentioned in notification, as persons interested they are not precluded from filing their objections and on such objections being filed, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections so filed irrespective of whether their names are shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Merely on account of the reason that names of registered owners are not mentioned in notification issued under Section 4(1), the notification cannot be, ipso facto, invalidated unless it is pleaded and proved that any prejudice, on account of the same, is caused to the owners of the land. [Para 105]
2. Before going into the individual issues raised in these writ petitions, I propose to decide the common issue first.
3. In all these cases, the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural lands. They are proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the poorer sections of the Society. In the affidavits filed in support of their respective writ petitions, the petitioners averred that under Section 3 of the 2006 Act, which came into force from 2.1.2006, no agricultural land shall be put to non-agricultural purposes, without the prior permission of the competent authority, and that the person, who intends to use the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, has to make an application to the competent authority for such conversion in the prescribed form by payment of a specified fees. It is further averred that under Section 3(6) the competent authority may reject the request for conversion by giving reasons. On this premise, the petitioners averred that in the face of the prohibition contained in Section 3 on the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, the impugned notifications, under which the petitioners' agricultural lands are proposed to be acquired, are liable to be declared as illegal.
4. In the separate counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is averred that the provisions of the 2006 Act have no application to the lands proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the poorer sections of the Society.
5. Sri C. Raghu, Sri P. Sri Raghuram, Sri T. Jagadeesh, Sri Ch. Dhananjaya and Smt. A. Chaya Devi advanced their arguments on behalf of the petitioners on this issue and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition made his submissions on behalf of the respondents.
6. The sheet - anchor of their arguments is that the proposed acquisition of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose (providing house sites), without conversion, is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 3 of the 2006 Act.
7. Sri C. Raghu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sanjeet Singh Grewal, (2007) 6 SCC 292.
8. Sri P. Sreeraghuram, learned Counsel, submitted that though a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 1.10.2007 rendered in Writ Petition No.22809 of 2006 rejected a similar contention, this issue requires fresh consideration in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court In Sanjeet Singh Grewal's case (supra).
9. Sri T. Jagadish, learned Counsel, submitted that while Rule 71 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Rules envisaged prohibition of conversion of any agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without permission from the District Collector concerned, for the first time a comprehensive Statute was introduced by way of the 2006 Act. He submitted that the objective of this Act is to enable the neighbouring agricultural landowners to raise objections to usage of land for nonagricultural purpose, and that Section 3 prohibits such usage of the land without prior permission from the competent authority.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. To appreciate the above mentioned contentions of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act.
11. The long title of the Act reads as under:
"An Act to Regulate the Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Purposes and f
