Dismissed

Konduru Padmavathi, v. District Collector, Nellore District.

Telangana HC29 Dec 2011WP/17621/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition notification for an industrial park. The court held that Part VII procedure is not mandatory for such acquisitions and rejected challenges to legality without specific allegations of procedural impropriety.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned notification upheld; interim order vacated; other connected matters disposed of as infructuous.

Konduru Padmavathi, Vs District Collector, Nellore… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17621 of 2011

¶2

Dated 2 9 th December, 2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Konduru Padmavathi

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

District Collector, Nellore District and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.Anasuya

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P.Roy Reddy

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash notification, dated 12.01.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶14

The petitioner is owner of Acs.20.30 cents of land comprised in various survey numbers of Menakur Village, Naidupet Mandal, Nellore District which was proposed to be acquired under the impugned notification for the purpose of establishment of an industrial park. The only plea on which the petitioner questioned the validity of the impugned notification is that respondent No.3 being a company, the procedure envisaged under Part VII of the Act has not been followed, and thereby the whole land acquisition proceedings have been vitiated.

¶15

At the hearing, Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth her objections and that acquisition of agricultural land for industrial purpose is illegal and unreasonable.

¶16

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it is inter alia stated that the procedure has been scrupulously followed under the provisions of the Act in publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, holding of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and holding of award enquiry and passing award. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is stated that after completing the statutory formalities, enquiry was conducted on 21.04.2007 and award was passed on 31.05.2007.

¶17

With respect to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure envisaged in Part VII of the Act is not followed, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submitted that the Supreme Court in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy Distric t^[1] held that the infrastructure development project undertaken by the State Government and executed under the auspices of respondent No.3 falls within the expression of public purpose. While dealing with a similar contention that procedure under Part VII should have been applied for acquiring the lands for development by respondent No.3, the Supreme Court held as under:

¶18

“We would have indeed considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants closely in the light of earlier decisions of this Court. We are, however, of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Government was right in forming an opinion and reaching a satisfaction as to ‘public purpose’ and in initiating proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 and in invoking Part II of the Act. We, therefore, refrain from undertaking further exercise. In our considered opinion, it is not necessary for us to enter into larger question in view of ‘fact situation’ in the instant case.”

¶19

In P.Shirisha and another v. The Land Acquisition Officercum-Special Deputy Collector, Khairatabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶20

and others^[2] , a learned Single Judge of this Court held that even if the land which is proposed to be acquired is sought to be allotted to a third party by the APIIC, the said acquisition proceedings do not require compliance with procedure under Part VII of the Act.

¶21

In view of these authoritative pronouncements, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

¶22

With regard to the submission of the learned counsel that acquisition of the petitioner’s land is illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has not alleged any procedural illegalities or irregularities in the publication of notification and declaration and holding of enquiries and passing of award. Unless the petitioner points out any such illegalities, the writ petition filed after passing of award cannot be entertained (See Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others^[3] and C.Padma v. Dy.Secretary to the Government of T.N .^[4] )

¶23

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed.

¶24

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 27.06.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.21194, 31009 and 36394 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4676 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶26

29^th December, 2011 VGB

¶27

[1] 2008 (7) SCJ 641 = (2008) 9 SCC 552 [2] W.P.No.23633 of 2006, dated 13.08.2010

¶28

[3] AIR 2000 SC 671

¶29

[4] (1997) 2 SCC 627

Konduru Padmavathi, v. District Collector, Nellore District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konduru Padmavathi, v. District Collector, Nellore District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bairapangu Samuel Vs The District Collector

Jangalappa Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Miyaapuram Brahmaiah (died) per Lr Vs The Special Collector, L.A. Srsp, Ssp and Jcr Glip

Jetti Narasimha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Subramanya Cotton Ginning Industries, Rakmapur (v) Vs Andhra Pradesh Electicity Regulatory Commission

M/s. G.K.Cold Storage Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission