SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(AP) 689

2008 (6) ALT 617 (D.S.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Smt. T. MEENA KUMARI and P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and others - Appellant
Versus
Eedara Krishna - Respondent
WA No.1517 of 2001
Decided on 28-08-2008.

Advocates appeared:
Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the Appellants.
Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, Counsel for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 9(3), 4(1), 6, 5-A, 9, 10,12(2), 11 – Declaration – The Respondent herein questioned the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by way of Writ Petition – Land Acquisition – It was the case of the Respondent before this Court,from which the present appeal arises, that the authorities did not issue any notice under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act with regard to the conduct of the award enquiry under Section 11 of the Act – The Respondent stated that no award had been passed pursuant to the Section-6 declaration and the possession of the land was not taken – He, therefore, alleged that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed – It was his further grievance that the authorities sought to interfere with his possession over the land, constraining him to get a legal notice bringing out the above facts, but the authorities, having received the same did not give any effective reply – Held, the court has noticed that there is no proof of the land having been taken as alleged by the authorities – There is no panchanama available in the record and there is no proof of notice having been issued under Section 12(2) of the Act – Further, when the Respondent herein obtained only an order of stay of his dispossession from the land there was no necessity for the authorities, had they really taken possession, to move a vacate stay petition praying that unless the stay is vacated, the beneficiaries would be put to great hardship and the very purpose of the acquisition would be defeated – This act on the part of the authorities clearly speaks against their having taken possession of the land as claimed by them –Order Accordingly

ORDER (Per P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.)

Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition NO.13318 of 1998, the State represented by its officers is in appeal before us. By the said order, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition declaring that Award NO.2 of 1993, dated 22.12.1993 pertaining to the acquisition of an extent of AC.1-50 cents in R.S.No.150/4 of Penikeru Village, Alamuru Mandai, East Godavari District, was illegal and liable to be set aside in the light of the violation of the mandatory requirement of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').

2. The facts of the case germane to this adjudication are as follows:

The State of Andhra Pradesh issued notification dated 27.07.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire a total extent of AC.B-B9 cents of land in Penikeru Village, Alamuru Mandai, East Godavari District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. The land proposed to be acquired was situated in Sy.Nos.150/4, 150/B, 150/9, 150/10, 151/1, 151/2, 151/3 and 151/4 of the Village. In so far as the Respondent in this writ appeal is concerned, (who was the Petitioner in the writ petition), his double crop wet land admeasuring AC.1~50 cents in Sy.No.150/4 was proposed to be acquired under the said notification.

3. It is pertinent to note that the State, while issuing the above notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, simultaneously published the declaration under Section 6 of the Act also. The same were published in the A.P. Gazettee on 27.07.1981. While so, Writ Petition NO.2498 of 1981 came to be filed by the land owners of the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.150/8, 150/9 and 150/10 in respect of the proposed acquisition and pursuant to the order of this Court staying their dispossession, their land admeasuring AC.0-74 cents was excluded and an award was passed bearing Award NO.24 of 1982, dated 17.06.1982 in respect of the remaining land. However, Writ Petitions Nos.7279 and 7281 of 1983 were filed before this Court by the owners of the lands in Sy.Nos.151/1, 151/2,151/3 and 151/4 and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.02.1986 in the said writ petitions, an extent of AC.6-28 cents covered by the litigation was also excluded from the proposed acquisition. The Respondent herein filed W.P.No.4475 of 1982 before this Court seeking to restrain the Respondents therein from proceeding further with the acquisition without following the procedure laid down by law. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.01.1986, taking note of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published simultaneously and setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The authorities were directed to conduct an enquiry 'under Section 5-A of the Act giving due notice and opportunity to the Respondent herein.

4. Pursuant to the said order, notice dated 28.04.1986 was issued under Section 5-A of the Act to the Respondent and an enquiry was conducted on 04.06.1986. After considering the Respondent's objections, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Collector, East Godavari District, under Reference NO.11 /47/81, dated 24.10.1986 and the declaration was published in the East Godavari Gazettee on 28.10.1986. The same was also published in Andhra Jyothi and Visalandhra News Papers on 08.11.1986. The Respondent herein questioned the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by way of Writ Petition No.2096 of 1987 before this Court, but the same was dismissed by an order dated 21.10.1992. Writ Appeal NO.978 of 1992, filed by the Respondent herein against the dismissal of W.P.No.2096 of 1987, was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 21.02.1997.

5. It was the case of the Respondent before this Court in W.P.No.13318 of 1998, from which the present appeal arises, that the authori


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top