IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
Shaik Jonny & Others - Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Revenue & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 28106 of 2011 & 4469 of 2012
Decided on : 02-06-2016
Land Acquisition and Requisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4(1), 5 (A) and 6 – Constitution of India – Article 300-A – Notification – Acquiring land for public purpose – Petitioners that they are residents of Dharanikota Village, eking out their livelihood by cultivating lands they are all landless poor persons and are owners of small extents of land While so, 3rd respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 in Roc identifying houses and house sites of the petitioners for acquiring same situated in aforesaid survey numbers for public purpose i.e., for construction of Tourism Project, Recreation Amenities and other commercial complex – That some of petitioners filed objections in pursuance to notices issued to them under Section 5(A) of Act – However, without considering said objections being filed by petitioners 3rd respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on rejecting the objections of the petitioners – It is case of some of petitioners that though they have purchased the lands, their names are not mentioned in notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act – Aggrieved by notification under Section 4(1) of Act and impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the objections of petitioners in pursuant to notification, present writ petitions are filed – Held, in impugned notification, public purpose that it is mentioned as tourism project, recreation facilities and other commercial and social activities and in counter it is explained stating that public purpose including development of International Buddhist Learning & Cultural Centre – According to me, tourism project includes many aspects and establishment of Buddhist centre is also one of the aspects of tourism projects. As per the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the above citations, the consideration of objections of the petitioners should be objective and should be after application of mind, but in the present case, the 3rdrespondent rejected the objections of the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners would be paid compensation as per the Act and also that the said land is required for public purpose – Right conferred under Section 5-A of the Act is an important valuable right to the petitioners and is one of the procedural safeguard against the arbitrary acquisition of lands. Unless the procedure as envisaged under Section 5-A of Act is followed in its true spirit, it cannot be said that the procedure established under law is followed, depriving the petitioners of their lands, as the same will be in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India – Decision of the 3rd respondent on objections of the petitioners by way of impugned order does not satisfy the test of application of mind and also the reasons provided in impugned order does not inspire confidence of this Court for upholding the action of the respondents in issuing Declaration under Section 6(1) of Act – Petitions are allowed. (Para 16)
1. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Dharanikota Village, eking out their livelihood by cultivating the lands. They are all landless poor persons and are owners of small extents of land in Sy.Nos.180B, 182A, 183 and 184 of Dharanikota village of Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District. While so, the 3rd respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act) on 28.03.2011 in Roc.No.1337/2011-G-1 identifying the houses and house sites of the petitioners for acquiring the same situated in the aforesaid survey numbers for public purpose i.e., for construction of Tourism Project, Recreation Amenities and other commercial complex in Dharanikota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur district. That some of the petitioners filed objections in pursuance to the notices issued to them under Section 5(A) of the Act. However, without considering the said objections being filed by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23.09.2011 rejecting the objections of the petitioners. It is the case of some of the petitioners that though they have purchased the lands, their names are not mentioned in notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28.03.2011 and impugned proceedings dated 23.09.2011 issued by the 3rd respondent, rejecting the objections of the petitioners in pursuant to the notification, present writ petitions are filed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the other respondents denying the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions stating that the subject land under acquisition has historical importance. According to Vajrayana traditional sources Buddha preached at Dharanikota/Dhanyakatakam and conducted Kalachakra ceremony in the year following his enlightenment at the great Stupa of Dhanyakataka, Dhanyakatakam (Amaravati). It was the Capital of Andhra Satavahanas. The 30th Kalachakra festival, a popular Buddhist ritual was held there in the first week of January, 2006 and that the said town is a centre of pilgrimage to both Hindus and Buddhists. The Buddhist Stupa originally built during the reign of emperor Ashoka. That the region between Krishna and Godavari rivers was an important place for Buddhism and the Dalai Lama of Tibet conducted a Kalachakra initiation at the proposed land under acquisition in the year 2006.
4. It is stated that the Vice Chairman, VGTM UDA, Vijayawada has proposed to acquire an extent of Ac.16.39 cents in R.S.Nos.182,183/1 & 184 of Dharanikota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District vide Rc.A1/275/2011, dated 08.03.2011 for the development of Tourism Project, Recreation amenities and other commercial community activities, with an intention to develop International Buddhist learning and cultural centre. The terms tourism, recreation, commercial community activities were used on generic terms in the notification but the specific purpose is to develop International Buddhist Learning and Cultural Centre. The Collector, Guntur has approved the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to an extent of Acs.16.39 cents on 28.03.2011. The Pattadar & Enjoyer names shown in the Draft Notification are as per the Revenue records i.e., Adangal. The Notices under Section 5-A of the Act dated 11.04.2011 are published in the locality on 16.04.2011 and also sent to the land owners, who were notified in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act through registered post. Objections under 5(A) were filed by the petitioners and they have also attended enquiry on 25.04.2011. After considering the objections and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, the same were overruled by the Collector, Guntur in Rc.No.1337/2001-G1, dated 23.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.