Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1261 (AP)

Sanghi Textiles Limited v. Government Of A. P.

2001-10-11

G.BIKSHAPATHY

body2001
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed acquisition of the lands through notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act vide G. O. Rt. No. 4518, dated 27-11-2000 and notification and declaration issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act, in Memo No. 47777/1 and PR/a2/2000-3, dated 30-11-2000 published in Eenadu daily newspaper dated: 4-1-2001 and 6-1-2001, as illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that an extent of Ac. 1. 29 guntas in Survey no. 397/2 of Koheda Village and a further extent of Ac. 1-12 guntas of lands in Survey no. 514/2 of Anajpur Village were sought to be acquired for the purpose of laying approach road from National Highway to the Ramoji Film City. The notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the gazetted on 27-11-2000 and Section 6 declaration was made on 30-11-2000. The said orders are assailed on various grounds as mentioned in the writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI N. Subba Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners urges the following grounds. ( 4 ) FIRSTLY, the notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act did not specify that the said acquisition is for a company. Secondly, he submits that dispensing with 5-A enquiry is illegal and arbitrary. ( 5 ) WITH regard to ground No. 1, he refers to the notifications issued under sections 4 (1) and 6 and submits that there is no mention anywhere in the said notifications that the land acquisition is made for the purpose of laying approach road on behalf of a company under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, failure to mention the same in the notifications is fatal to the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the notifications have to be declared as illegal. ( 6 ) WITH regard to ground No. 2, namely, dispensing with 5-A enquiry, the learned senior Counsel would submit that there was no urgency as such and the dispensation of 5-A enquiry is a mala fide exercise of power. Further, he submits that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 458, dated 8-11-1999 granting consent under section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of lands in question. But, however, amendment was issued in G. O. Ms. Further, he submits that the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 458, dated 8-11-1999 granting consent under section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of lands in question. But, however, amendment was issued in G. O. Ms. No. 107, dated 25-3-2000, i. e. , after a lapse of nearly four months and therefore when the amendment was issued after such a long lapse of time invoking the urgency clause is an abuse of the legal process and therefore it is not a bona fide exercise on the part of the Government. Hence, he contends that dispensing with 5-A enquiry is illegal and contrary to law. ( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader would submit that the notification was issued for laying approach road to the Ramoji film City and even though it is not mentioned in the notification as such that the land acquisition is for a company, but the proceedings would clearly indicate that the acquisition is for a company. He further submits that the petitioners were party to the said acquisition proceedings and in various meetings held in this regard the petitioners participated and submitted their objections. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that the lands are being acquired for laying approach road. ( 8 ) WITH regard to dispensing with 5-A enquiry, the learned Government Pleader submits that this is only an administrative action on the part of the Government. Therefore, the Court would not interfere under Article 226 with the decision taken on the administrative side. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions in union of India v. Praveen Gupta and others, air 1997 SC 78, and A. P. Sareen v. State of UP. and others, AIR 1997 SC 1284 . He further submits that the petitioners have not established that any prejudice was caused to them by dispensing with the 5-A enquiry. When the petitioners have already submitted their objections before the committee appointed for that purpose, the question of conducting again 5-A enquiry would be only a formality in repetition. He submits that it would not vitiate the proceedings in any manner. ( 9 ) MR. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for 4th respondent-M/s. Usha Kiran Movies (P) Limited, submits that Ramoji Film City is situated at a distance of 6 kms. He submits that it would not vitiate the proceedings in any manner. ( 9 ) MR. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for 4th respondent-M/s. Usha Kiran Movies (P) Limited, submits that Ramoji Film City is situated at a distance of 6 kms. from National Highway and the management of Usha Kiran Movies by private negotiations acquired the lands from the other owners and the road is laid almost for the entire area, excepting a patch of one furlong, for which, the 4th respondent approached the petitioners for acquiring the land through private negotiations, which they refused. Therefore, it filed an application before the Government on 16-4-1997 for acquiring the land under the provisions of chapter VII. It is its case that the government directed the Collector to conduct an enquiry and submits a report. Therefore, notices were sent to the petitioners on 4-7-2000 and 24-7-2000. The petitioners after receiving the notices submitted a representation on 28-7-1997 and thereafter the Government constituted Land Acquisition committee and it held various sittings. During the sittings held by the Committee, the petitioners submitted their representations objecting for the acquisition of the lands. Taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners and the requirement of 4th respondent, the committee recommended for the acquisition of the lands. Accordingly, notification was issued under Section 4 (1) and a declaration was published under section 6. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Government. ( 10 ) MR. E. Manohar, while countenacing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that there was no specific mention in the notification specifically stating that the acquisition is for a company. But, that would not make any difference in the eye of law. He submits that the petitioners were aware of these proceedings having participated in various sittings held by the land Acquisition Committee. In, such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings having filed objections for the acquisition of the land. Further, they were fully aware of the fact that the lands were sought to be acquired for laying approach road connecting the National Highway to the Ramoji Film city. In, such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings having filed objections for the acquisition of the land. Further, they were fully aware of the fact that the lands were sought to be acquired for laying approach road connecting the National Highway to the Ramoji Film city. In this regard, he refers to the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad high Court in Radha Swami Satsang Sabha v. Tara Chand and others, AIR 1939 all. 557. ( 11 ) IN fact the Division Bench also referred to the report of Land Acquisition officer and held that the intention of the government was to acquire for a company. The following is the extract relevant for our purpose. "the Land Acquisition Officer s report also shows that the land was being required for a company. He says: "all that is necessary to be proved in case of acquisition of land for a company is that the work for which the land is to be acquired is likely to prove useful to the public (vide clause (b) of Section 40 ). In the present case land is being acquired for the establishment of anup-to-date dairy farm. This includes the providing of pasturages, the growing of fodder and corns, the construction of sheds and buildings and improving of the breed of milch cattle, and as a consequence the uplift of neighbouring villages, the finding of goods market for their milk, the supplying of pasteurised milk and milk products to the city and cantonment of Agra and other towns. It is hardly necessary to add that the kind of dairies the radha Swami Satsang Sabha is establishing are rare in India and the useful purpose which such dairy is likely to serve to the public is a self-evident truth requiring no comments. " the concluding portion of his report reads as follows: submitted to the Collector with the recommendation that purposes for which the land is being acquired for the Sabha (company) are purposes likely to prove useful to the public within the meaning of section 40 of the said Act and that the government may be moved to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act. This report was accepted by the Collector, and it is thus clear that the intention was to acquire land which was needed for a company within the meaning of Section 40 (1) (b) of the Act, and we have to consider whether this was made sufficiently clear in the declaration which was issued by the government under Section 6 of the Act. " ( 12 ) REFERRING to the above case, learned senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners were fully aware of the situation and therefore failure to mention that the land is required for a company in the notification would not in any way affect the validity or otherwise of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) and Section 6 declaration. ( 13 ) WITH regard to dispensing with section 5-A enquiry, learned Counsel would however rely on the decisions submitted by the learned Government Pleader in this regard and submit that the mere fact that some time had lapsed between 4 (1) and 6 declaration cannot be a ground to urge that the urgency ceased to exist. ( 14 ) THE issue that arises for consideration in this case is whether non-mentioning of the factum that the acquisition is for a company, would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings issued under Section 4 (1) and 6. It is true that in Section 4 (1) notification in G. O. Rt. No. 4518, dated 27-11-2000 published in the Gazette dated 12-12-2000, it was stated:"the land specified in the schedule below situated at Koheda and Anajpur villages of hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is needed for a public purpose to witnesses for formation of approach road to Ramoji film City. " ( 15 ) WHILE in Section 6 declaration published on 13-12-2000, it was mentioned:"the land specified below and measuring ac. 3-01 gunta be the same a little more or less is needed to wit for formation of approach road to Ramojit Film City. "but, the crucial question is whether the notifications are illegal and incompetent? " ( 15 ) WHILE in Section 6 declaration published on 13-12-2000, it was mentioned:"the land specified below and measuring ac. 3-01 gunta be the same a little more or less is needed to wit for formation of approach road to Ramojit Film City. "but, the crucial question is whether the notifications are illegal and incompetent? ( 16 ) UNDER Section 39 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, previous consent of the appropriate Government and the execution of agreement is necessary when acquisition is being undertaken for any company and under Section 40 of the Act, previous enquiry is contemplated according to which the consent shall not be given unless the appropriate Government is satisfied, either on the report of the Collector under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) or by an enquiry held as provided therein. ( 17 ) THE learned senior Counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that before the consent was issued under G. O. Ms. No. 458, an enquiry was conducted by the Land acquisition Committee constituted for this purpose and objections were called for from the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the Committee consists of secretaries to the Government Departments of Revenue Agriculture and Industries and such other Officers as the appropriate government may appoint; and such other members as the appropriate Government may appoint and one of the member of the committee shall be its Chairman. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the committee constituted under Rule 3 was on a better footing to appreciate the matter in its depth rather than an enquiry conducted under Section 5-A where an Officer of the rank of Deputy Collector is entrusted with the job of conducting such enquiry and to take a decision in this regard. It is to be noted that the petitioners have made an objection to the land acquisition were fully aware of the situation and submitted their written objections to the Committee consisting of persons referred to above and the Committee after considering the matter sent its recommendation to the Government recommending for acquisition. The government accordingly issued G. O. Ms. No. 458, dated: 8-11-1999. Paras 3 and 4 are relevant, which are extracted below: "3. The government accordingly issued G. O. Ms. No. 458, dated: 8-11-1999. Paras 3 and 4 are relevant, which are extracted below: "3. In the reference second read above, government have continued a Land acquisition Committee for advising the government in relation to acquisition of land under Part VII of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 for formation of approach road to the Ramoji Film City in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. The committee met on 4-10-1999. Keeping in view the development of Film Industry in hyderabad and Ramoji Film City being a place of tourist importance, the matter has been examined under the provisions of sections 38 to 44-B in Part VII of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 read with Land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and the committee felt that M/s Usha Kiran movies, Hyderabad fulfils the requisite conditions as laid down therein, i. e. , :- (i) Registered under Companies Act, 1956; and (ii) 2,217 employees are working in the company. The Committee has, therefore, recommended to the Government to agree for acquisition of patta land for M/s. Usha Kiran Movies limited for formation of approach road to the Ramoji Film City. 4. Government after careful examination of the above recommendations of the committee, hereby give consent under section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the following private lands measuring approximately as follows:- (i) Ac. 2-00 in S. No. 379 of Koheda (village) of Ranga Reddy District. (ii) Ac. 0-35 1/2 gts. in S. No. 444 of Anajpur (v) of Ranga Reddy District (Omitted in g. O. Ms. No. No. 107, dated 25-3-2000) (iii) Ac. 0-31 gts. in S. No. 514 of Anajpur (v) of Ranga Reddy District. Under the provisions of Sections 38 to 44-B in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 for the formation of approach road to the Ramoji Film City subject to the following conditions namely: (1) The road for which land is being acquired should be open to the public in general. (Omitted in G. O. Ms. (Omitted in G. O. Ms. No. 107, dated 25-3-2000) (2) Enhancement of amount of compensation and other statutory benefits to land holders arising out of litigation, if any, are to be fully borne by the Company, and (3) The company should agree to bear the cost of staff for the acquisition of land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the situation. It is not, as if, for the first time the notification was issued without making any exercise prior to publishing the gazette notification. ( 18 ) IN the Sabha s case, the land was acquired for Radhaswami Satsang Sabha, which was presumably regarded as a company within the meaning of Section 3 (e) of the Act. The land was required for dairy pasturages etc. , by the said Sabha. In the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of Land acquisition Act, it was mentioned that the land was required for public purpose, whereas it was in fact required for the Sabha. The Division Bench observed:"there appears to be some confusion in the written statements in the use of the expression "public purpose", but it was clearly understood by the parties that the land was required for the Satsang Sabha which of course would pay the compensation. " ( 19 ) THEREFORE, mere non-mentioning of the fact under Section 4 (1) notification that the land was required for a company would not vitiate the proceedings, more especially when the petitioners had actively and effectively participated in the deliberations before the Land Acquisition Committee constituted under Rule (3) of the Land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. It is not the case of the petitioners that there were pre-notifications and pre-declaration irregularities. In fact, G. O. Ms. No. 458 is a preclude to the Land Acquisition proceedings and the said G. O. has not been assailed. Under those circumstances, I have to necessarily reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on this issue and hold that under the circumstances such an omission is neither fatal nor a vitiating factor to the Land Acquisition proceedings. ( 20 ) WITH regard to dispensation of 5-A enquiry, it is to be seen that even prior to the issue of Section 4 (1) notification, deliberations were held with regard to the acquisition of the land and it was decided to acquire the land. ( 20 ) WITH regard to dispensation of 5-A enquiry, it is to be seen that even prior to the issue of Section 4 (1) notification, deliberations were held with regard to the acquisition of the land and it was decided to acquire the land. As rightly submitted by the learned senior Counsel for the 4th respondent, the action of the Government in dispensing with 5-A enquiry is only administrative in nature and that cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, in this case, no further useful purpose could have been served by conducting 5-A enquiry as the committee constituted for the purpose was on a higher pedestal and the said Committee recommended for acquisition of the same. Before the said committee the petitioners had ample opportunity to make their submissions and they had in fact made their submissions and filed objections for the said acquisition. Therefore, resorting to 5-A enquiry is nothing but a repetition of the proceedings, which were already finalized prior to giving consent by the Government. The Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar gupta s case (supra) has made clear that "decision on urgency is an administrative decision and is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government on the basis of the material available on record. Therefore, there was no need to pass any reasoned order to reach the conclusion that there is urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A in exercise of power under Section 17 (4 ). " ( 21 ) MR. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that G. O. Ms. No. 458 was issued on 8-11-1999, and amendments were effected in G. O. Ms. No. 107, dated 25-3-2000. Thereafter, Section 4 (1) notification and section Declaration were made. Hence, it cannot be said that there was such an urgency as to dispense with Section 5-A enquiry. On the other hand, the learned senior Counsel for 4th respondent would submit that the entire approach road is about 6 kms. , and the road is laid almost for the entire area, excepting a patch of one furlong and the road is being kept unused for want of this small stretch of land. On the other hand, the learned senior Counsel for 4th respondent would submit that the entire approach road is about 6 kms. , and the road is laid almost for the entire area, excepting a patch of one furlong and the road is being kept unused for want of this small stretch of land. Therefore, invoking the urgency clause under such situation cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or it can be said that it is a mala fide exercise of power. ( 22 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, a decision was taken by the highest body constituted under the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and it has after detailed deliberations recommended for the said acquisition and in the wake of the fact that out of 6 kms. , of road, a negligible portion is causing the obstacle in the way of formation of road and in such a situation invoking the urgency clause under Section 5-A cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Moreover, the Government had taken decision to dispense with the 5-A enquiry obviously keeping in view the aforesaid situation. For the aforementioned reasons, and in view of the decision of the Supreme court in Gupta s case (supra), it would not be appropriate for this Court to minutously scrutinize the reasons for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land acquisition Act. ( 23 ) UNDER these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.