Allowed

Gavvela Narayana Swamy v. District Collector

Telangana HC22 Sept 2014WP/28325/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of objections and draft declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the District Collector failed to objectively consider the petitioners' objections regarding their status as small farmers and the availability of government land, thereby violating procedural mandates of Section 5-A.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting objections under Section 5-A and the draft declaration under Section 6. Respondents allowed to proceed after holding a fresh enquiry. Miscellaneous petitions disposed of.

Gavvela Narayana Swamy Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.28325 of 2008

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the proceedings of the District Collector, Anantapur District/first respondent herein issued vide R.C.No.10041/2007/GS dated 06.12.2008, rejecting the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and the declaration issued by the first respondent under Section 6 of the Act vide R.C.No.G3/10041/2007 dated 08.12.2008.

¶4

2. Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶5

3. The first respondent/District Collector issued a notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners herein situated in Sy.No.630-1 of Dharmavaram Village and Mandal, Anantapur District for the purpose of providing house-sites for weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. Initially, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.289/208 before this Court, questioning the draft notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by way of an order dated 22.01.2008, directing the respondents herein to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners herein in the enquiry proposed to be held under Section 5-A of the Act before proceeding further. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.25782/2008 before this Court and this Court disposed of the said writ petition by way of an order dated 01.12.2008 by quashing the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent authorities, conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the petitioners herein submitted their objections. The District Collector, by way of proceedings in Rc.No.10041/2007/G5 dated 06.12.2008, rejected the objections

¶6

submitted by the petitioners. Thereafter, the first respondent/District Collector vide proceedings Rc.G5/10041/08 dated 08.12.2008 issued a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Challenging the above said order of rejection of objections filed by the petitioners’ herein under Section 5-A of the Act and the Draft Declaration issued by the District Collector, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶7

4. This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi on 29.12.2008 in WPMP.37121/2008 granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a vacate application vide WVMP.No.5824/2010 supported by a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The said counter affidavit denies the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition while justifying the impugned proceedings.

¶8

5. In the present writ petition, broadly there are two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely (1) petitioners are small farmers as such the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners herein is impermissible and (2) when alternative Government lands are available, the acquisition of the lands of the private individuals is not permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions and submissions places strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.27429/2008 and batch dated 07.02.2014.

¶9

6. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no prohibition for acquisition of the lands of the small farmers in the event of inevitability. It is further argued that the impugned proceedings are strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶10

7. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates in clear and unequivocal terms that no citizen of this Country shall be deprived or divested of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory

¶11

legislation which authorizes and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to acquire the properties of the private individuals without reference to their consent. Therefore, the provisions of such legislation are required to be adhered to scrupulously and followed meticulously and any deviation from the provisions of law would undoubtedly render the entire proceedings invalid. The issue in the present writ petition is required to be considered in the light of the above aspects.

¶12

8. The material available on record manifestly discloses that pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP.No.25782/2008 dated 01.12.2008, the respondents herein conducted 5-A enquiry and the petitioners submitted their objections. Before the respondent authorities specific objections were taken by the petitioners herein with regard to their status of small farmers and also availability of the Government lands. A perusal of the order of rejection of objections passed by the District Collector, Anantapur vide proceedings Rc.10041/2007/G5 dated 06.12.2008 amply discloses that the District Collector except extracting the objections submitted by the petitioners and remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, did not consider the objections in a pragmatic manner and a reading of the said order of rejection clearly shows the lack of objective consideration by the District Collector. It is to be noted at this juncture that the Hon’ble Supreme Court time again held that the right under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is a valuable right and is akin to fundamental and human right. Therefore, such a right given under the statute cannot be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner. Therefore, on this ground of non-consideration of the objections in an objective manner is sufficient to set aside the order of rejection passed by the first respondent herein.

¶13

9. Another significant aspect which needs mention in this context is that it is the categoric case of the petitioners herein that all the petitioners herein are small farmers and their only source of livelihood is

¶14

agriculture which they are carrying on in the subject lands. This aspect is not disputed by the respondents herein in their counter affidavit. In the order of rejection, the first respondent District Collector referred to a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to pendency of W.P.No.15405/2005 as one of the grounds for rejection of the objections. In fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by way of an order dated 14.03.2008 i.e., long prior to the impugned order of rejection of objections dated 6.012.2008. Therefore, the said objection by the Revenue Divisional Officer is also unsustainable and untenable and contrary to the material available on record. The respondent authorities should have been more cautious while recording the same in the impugned order of rejection.

¶15

10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in support of the vacate application, it is stated that it is a fact that there is a Regatipalli Colonization Society at Regatipalli village having 1350.00 acres of Government land under the society and most of the land is covered with Court litigations and W.P.No.9789/2008 is pending and as such the said land was not proposed for acquisition. This stand taken by the respondents herein also falls to ground in view of disposal of the said writ petition by way of an order dated 30.04.2008. In fact, the subject matter of the said writ petition as evident from the orders in this writ petition placed on record is only an extent of Ac.6-05 cents. The District Collector, as evident from the impugned order of rejection, did not consider all these aspects in a proper perspective and simply relied upon the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer and endorsed the same without examining the material available on record.

¶16

11. In the light of the above factual scenario, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the respondent authorities did not consider the objections filed by the petitioners herein in true letter and spirit of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act.

¶17

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings vide R.C.No.10041/2007/GS dated 06.12.2008, rejecting the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide R.C.No.G3/10041/2007 dated 08.12.2008 issued by the first respondent/District Collector, Anantapur. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law by holding enquiry under the provisions of the Act after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶19

Date:22.09.2014 grk

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.28325 of 2008

¶22

Date : 22.09.2014

¶23

grk

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.28325 of 2008

¶25

Date : 22-09-2014

¶26

Between:

¶27

Gavvela Narayana Swamy s/o Late Ramanna, Aged about 41 years, D.No.20/648, Lonikota, Dharamavaram, Anantapur District and others.

¶28

… Petitioners

¶29

and

¶30

District Collector, Anantapur District at Ananthapur and another.

¶31

… Respondents

Gavvela Narayana Swamy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gavvela Narayana Swamy v. District Collector

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

Smt.Shameen Sultana Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Aditya Engineering Works (a firm Reg. under the Indian Vs The Asst. Labour Commisioner (Central)

Baddala Venkataiah Vs Sri B.Aravinda Reddy, I.A.S.

M. Gangadhara Rao Vs Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Sri Ramalaya Committee,Malakcharla,registered society Vs The District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari District

Madugani Sudharshan Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of Andhra