Honble THAKKER, J.–Leave granted.

(2). All these appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various Letters Patent Appeals as also in Writ Petitions. By the said orders, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) for acquisition of land being illegal, unlawful, mala fide and in colourable exercise of power by the State.

Factual background

(3). To appreciate the controversy in the present appeals, it is appropriate to refer to the facts in the first matter i.e. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2239 of 2006 (Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors. vs. Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy & Ors.). It was the case of the appellants before the High Court that the Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire a large chunk of land in the name of `public purpose for the purported development of `Financial District and Allied Projects. According to the appellants, the action has been taken in colourable exercise of power and in total violation of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as several other statutes in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh; such as, Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975; Zoning Regulations; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. The action has been taken, alleged the appellants, with mala fide intention and oblique motive to transfer valuable land of small farmers to a foreign company and few selected persons with vested interest.

(4). A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the State Government Gazette on July 17, 2002. The said action was challenged and the validity of notification was questioned in a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the petition following an earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002 by observing that the writ petition involved similar issues. The High Court, however, directed that `urgency clause sought to be invoked by the Government under Section 17 of the Act was illegal, unlawful and unwarranted. That part of the notification was, therefore, set aside and the Authorities were directed to proceed to hear objections of the owners/interested persons by following procedure under Section 5A of the Act. According to the appellants, the High Court was wholly wrong in dismissing the writ petition relying on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002 since in that case, the Court has considered only one issue; viz. the acquisition was or was not for public purpose as the beneficiary was Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (`APIIC for short). Really, the property has been given in bounty to a foreign Company which was not lawful. The High Court failed to consider and decide several important and crucial issues raised by the small landowners.

(5). Being aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition, the appellants preferred Writ Appeal which was also dismissed. The appellants have, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present appeal. Initially, notice was issued. Several matters raising similar issues were also filed and all were ordered to be placed for hearing together.

(6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submissions of appellants

(7). The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court was wholly wrong in dismissing writ-petitions as also writ appeals. According to the appellants, land acquisition proceedings were clearly unlawful, illegal, mala fide and violative of the fundamental rights of the appellants. They were taken in colourable exercise of power by the authorities. The appellants are small land- holders and their only livelihood was dependant on land attempted to be acquired by the respondents. According to the appellants, there was no `public purpose as defined in the Act and the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document