Partly allowed

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC17 Oct 2014WP/12912/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the endorsement rejecting objections and the draft declaration issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, directing the authorities to hold a proper enquiry and issue a fresh declaration after considering the pending report on objections.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 12.5.2008 and draft declaration dated 12.5.2008 set aside. Respondents directed to hold enquiry and proceed after receiving report and giving notice.

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.12912 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) issued vide Proceedings Rc.No.4394/07-G3 dated 21.11.2007, endorsement issued vide Rc.No.4394/07-G3 dated 12.5.2008 and draft declaration issued vide proceedings Rc.No.4394/07/G3 dated 12.5.2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the District Collector, Guntur.

¶5

2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P.Ramabrahmam, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶6

3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition are as under.

¶7

3.1 The 2^nd respondent-District Collector, Guntur vide proceedings Rc.No.4394/07-G3 dated 21.11.2007 issued a draft notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners herein situated at Guntagarlapadu Village, Narsaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet issued a notice under Section 5A of the Act vide proceedings Rc.No.2607/2007-C dated 29.11.2007, asking the petitioners to submit objections within 30 days while fixing the date of enquiry as 29.12.2007 at 11 a.m. in the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet. In response to the said notice of enquiry, the petitioners herein submitted their objections on 29.10.2007. Subsequently, the

¶8

District Collector, Guntur-2^nd respondent herein by virtue of endorsement Rc.No.4394/07-G3 dated 12.5.2008 rejected objections submitted by the petitioners herein. Later, the District Collector-2^nd respondent herein issued a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide proceedings Rc.No.4394/07/G3 dated 12.5.2008. Challenging the said draft notification dated 21.11.2007, endorsement dated 12.5.2008 issued under Section 5A and the draft declaration dated 12.5.2008 under Section 6 of the Act, the present writ petition came to be filed. This Court, while ordering rule nisi on 20.6.2008, granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the lands in question pursuant to the declaration dated 12.5.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act in W.P.M.P.No.16652 of 2008.

¶9

4. Responding to the rule nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, denying the averments and allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

¶10

5. Pending the present writ petition, respondents 4 and 5 herein came on record vide orders dated 5.10.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.4023 of 2010. The sum and substance of the case of the respondents 4 and 5 is that they are also interested in the subject property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings impugned in the present writ petition are highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the impugned orders are opposed to the very spirit and object of the Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the impugned endorsement dated 12.5.2008 issued by the District Collector, rejecting the objections of the petitioners herein is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the District Collector, having

¶11

addressed a letter vide Rc.No.4394/07/G3 dated 29.3.2008, requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet to re-examine the whole proposal and finalize the actual extent required for acquisition and to send a report on the objections of the petitioners herein, grossly erred in issuing the impugned endorsement without awaiting the said report from the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is nextly contended by the learned counsel that the aspect of small farmers and availability of alternate land were not properly considered by the authorities while issuing the impugned endorsement.

¶12

6. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned proceedings are strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and there is neither illegality nor any irregularity nor infirmity in the impugned proceedings and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners herein are not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is nextly contended by the learned Government Pleader that the authorities, as evident from the impugned endorsement, have thoroughly and meticulously considered the objections of the petitioners and over-ruled the same and the same cannot be said to be erroneous.

¶13

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the respondents 4 & 5 have also interest in the property and they are entitled to participate in the land acquisition proceedings.

¶14

8. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an ex-proprietary legislation, which authorizes and empowers the State

¶15

and its instrumentalities to acquire the properties of the private individuals without reference to their consent. Therefore, the authorities, discharging the statutory functions under the said legislation are required to adhere to and follow the provisions of law in a cautious and meticulous manner. Any deviation from the mandatory provisions of the Act would render the proceedings invalid. It is significant to note at this juncture that the right created under Section 5A of the Act in favour of the owner of the property is a valuable and precious right and the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again held that the said right is a human right and a right akin to fundamental right. Therefore, such a right cannot dealt with in a routine and mechanical manner. The consideration of objections under the provisions of Section 5A of the Act would be in a thorough and meticulous manner, which is an obligation on the part of the authorities. The issue in the present case is required to be examined in the light of the above aspects.

¶16

10. In the instant case, in response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, asking the petitioners to file objections, the petitioners herein submitted their objections on 29.12.2007, principally raising two objections namely; they are small farmers and there are alternate lands available. A perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 12.5.2008 manifestly shows that the said objections pointed out by the petitioners herein were not seriously considered by the authorities. A significant aspect, which needs attention is that the District Collector vide proceedings Rc.No.4394/07/G3 dated 29.3.2008 requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet to examine the whole proposal and to finalize the actual extent required for acquisition and to send a report. In the said letter, the District Collector categorically observed with regard to the objections raised by the petitioners herein on the ground that large chunk of land adjacent to municipal limits is available. It is the case of the petitioners herein that without waiting for the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the

¶17

District Collector issued the impugned endorsement dated 12.5.2008 followed by draft declaration dated 12.5.2008. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said conduct on the part of the respondents herein is liable to be deprecated and repulsed. Having called for report from the Revenue Divisional Officer on the objections of the petitioners herein, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the 2^nd respondent-District Collector in proceeding further by issuing the impugned endorsement and draft declaration. The mode and manner in which the authorities issued the impugned endorsement and draft declaration is highly preposterous and unreasonable and not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court.

¶18

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting the Endorsement vide proceedings Rc.No.4394/07-G3 dated 12.5.2008 and the draft declaration dated 12.5.2008 issued by the District Collector, Guntur-2^nd respondent herein. However, it is open for the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to hold enquiry and to proceed further in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity of being hard to the petitioners herein as well as unofficial respondents and after receipt of report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet pursuant to letter dated 29.3.2008 of the District Collector. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶20

Date: 17.10.2014 DA

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶22

W.P.No.12912 of 2008

¶23

17.10.2014

¶24

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶27

W.P.No.12912 of 2008

¶28

Date: 17.10.2014

¶29

Between:

¶30

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao & others.

¶31

Petitioners

¶32

And

¶33

Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others.

¶34

Respondents

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habibullah Aarif Vs The Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation Steel Plant

Smt.Dasari Sujata Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (a Govt of India

Kanakatala Rama Devi Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

K.Rangappa, S/o. Nagappa, Vs The Government of Telangana

J. Sriramulu, Vs the Government of Telangana

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao Vs Government of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary to