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

1956 Supreme(AP) 218

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,MANOHAR PERSHAD, JJ.
Ambatipudi Ramabrahmam
Versus
State of Andhra
Writ Appeal No. 41 of 1956 against order of Umamaheswaram, J., in W. P. No. 121 of 1953
Decided On : 16-11-1956

Advocates:
G. Venkatarama Sastri, for C.V. Kanyaka Prasad on behalf of Appellant; D. Venkatappayya Sastri, for Govt. Pleader (M. Seshachalapathi) on behalf of Respondent No. 1; N. Rajeswara Rao, for Respondent No. 2.

The Government can direct that the provisions of S. 5-A shall not apply only after the notification under S. 4 is issued, that it is incumbent upon the Government also to publish that direction in the Gazette and that as in the present case the direction was given prior to the notification under S. 4 and as it was not duly published in the Gazette the said direction was illegal.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT - S. 17 (4) - DIRECTION TO DISPENSE WITH S. 5-A - PUBLICATION IN GAZETTE - NOT NECESSARY - URGENCY - CAN BE DECIDED BEFORE NOTIFICATION UNDER S. 4 - NOTIFICATION UNDER S. 4 (1) - APPOINTMENT OF OFFICER TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS UNDER S. 5-A - MISTAKE - DOES NOT INVALIDATE DIRECTION UNDER S. 17 (4).

Fact of the Case:

The Guntur Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd., was formed in 1949, for the purpose of acquiring lands and constructing houses for its members on a co-operative basis. For the purpose of building houses, the Society approached the Government for acquiring 8 acres 54 cents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the direction issued in G. O. R. No. 916, dated 8th December, 1952 is valid. The court also held that the Government can dispense with the procedure under S. 5-A only after the publication of the notice under S. 9 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the direction to dispense with S. 5-A of the Act should be published in the Gazette? 2. Whether the Government can dispense with the procedure under S. 5-A only after the publication of the notice under S. 9 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the direction to dispense with S. 5-A of the Act need not be published in the Gazette. The court reasoned that the contents of the declaration under S. 6, are, therefore, confined only to the fact that a particular land is needed for a public purpose. It is not necessary under this section to publish the report or the reasons for the satisfaction of the Government that the land is required for a public purpose. 2. The court held that the Government can dispense with the procedure under S. 5-A only after the publication of the notice under S. 9 of the Act. The court reasoned that if the publication of the notice under S. 9 (1) is a condition precedent for dispensing with the procedure under section 5-A, the power conferred on the Government under S. 17 (4) would become nugatory, for the procedure under S. 5-A would have been complied with by the time the notice under S. 9 (1) is published.

Final Decision: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is an appeal against the order of our learned brother Umamaheswaram J., dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to restrain the respondents from taking further proceedings in pursuance of G. O. R. No. 916 Development dated 8th December, 1952.

2. The Guntur Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd., was formed in 1949, for the purpose of acquiring lands and constructing houses for its members on a co-operative basis. For the purpose of building houses, the Society approached the Government for acquiring 8 acres 54 cents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registrar of Co-operative Societies submitted to the Government a draft declaration under S. 6 of the Act for approval and for publication.

On 8th December, 1952, the Government of Madras approved the said drafts and requested the Superintendent of the Government Press to publish the same under S. 4 (1) of the Act in successive issues of the Fort St. George Gazette. By the same order, the Government accepted the view that the acquisition of the lands was an urgent one and directed that the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act would not apply to the said acquisition. Pursuant to the said order, on 24th December, 1952, a notification was issued under S. 4 (1) of the Act to the effect that the aforesaid lands were needed for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of houses and that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was authorised to exercise the powers conferred by S. 4 (2) of the Act.

Notwithstanding the order dated 8th December, 1952 exempting the acquisition in question from the operation of S. 5-A of the Act, presumably by some oversight, the notification used the usual form and appointed the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Co-operative Housing Schemes, to perform the functions of a Collector under S. 5-A of the Act. The appellant filed objections under S. 5-A to the proposed acquisition.

But the Government, without deciding those objections, issued a notification on 31st December, 1952 under S. 6 of the Act declaring that the aforesaid lands were needed for a public purpose and appointing the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Co-operative Housing Schemes to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act and to take possession of the lands under S. 17 (1). Pursuant to the said notification, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was taking further steps to acquire the lands.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ was filed to issue an order prohibiting the Government of the State of Andhra represented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Co-operative Housing Schemes from proceeding further in the matter of acquisition.

3. It was, inter alia, contended before the learned Judge that, as the direction by the Government exempting the acquisition from the operation of S. 5-A of the Act was not published in the Gazette, the said direction was not in compliance with S. 17(4) of the Act and was, therefore, invalid. The learned Judge negatived the contention and held that the said direction was in compliance with the provisions of S. 17 (4).

4. Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant, raised before us the same contention, which he had failed to substantiate before the learned Judge. To appreciate his contention, the relevant provisions of the Act may be read;

Section 4 (1).- "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.

Section 6 (1).- "Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, m






















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