Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 839 (AP)

Rachamsetti Nageswar Rao v. District Collector

2003-07-08

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners claim to be owners of agricultural lands comprised in S. Nos. 372/1a, 372/2 and 372/3a admeasuring about Acs. 3. 83. First respondent herein issued a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), dt. 29. 8. 1994, which was published in Guntur District Gazette dt. 31. 8. 1994, and in the local newspapers on 13. 8. 1994. Said Notification is challenged in this Writ Petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad, raised four contentions. He submits that though in the earlier litigation a direction was issued to conduct enquiry under Section 5a of the Act, same was not conducted by the Collector/land Acquisition Officer as contemplated under Section 5a of the Act, and the enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer as admitted in the counter affidavit. Secondly he would contend that there is sufficient alternative land available and the expenditure to the exchequer by acquiring fertile land of petitioners can be avoided if alternative land is utilized for providing house sites to weaker sections. Thirdly, the beneficiaries, for whom the land is being acquired, are having houses or house sites and therefore the acquisition is mala fide. Lastly he would contend that balance of petitioners land after acquisition would be rendered useless as the land is being acquired in such a manner that there would not be any access to the remaining land. In the counter affidavit filed it is admitted that the land was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to 48 individuals belonging to Padmasali caste. After this Court initially disposed of earlier writ petitions, the petitioners filed their objections and enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, who submitted report as well as proposals to the District Collector who published declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act in the Gazette dt. 10. 10. 1995. It is also stated that first petitioner has got an extent of Acs. 7. 39 and the allegation that he sold away the land is not correct. It is emphatically stated that Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5a by reason of delegations of powers by the Government. Section 5a of the Act in its application to State of Andhra Pradesh reads as under:section 5a. 7. 39 and the allegation that he sold away the land is not correct. It is emphatically stated that Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5a by reason of delegations of powers by the Government. Section 5a of the Act in its application to State of Andhra Pradesh reads as under:section 5a. Hearing of objections: (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days of causing public notice under the said sub-section object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary either made a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. A plain reading of the above provision would show that after receiving objections, the Collector shall give opportunity of being heard to objectors either in person or through authorised Pleader and after making such further enquiry make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act. When the appropriate authority, Government or the District Collector consider the report submitted under Section 5a and decided to publish declaration, the decision is final and cannot be challenged. When the appropriate authority, Government or the District Collector consider the report submitted under Section 5a and decided to publish declaration, the decision is final and cannot be challenged. ( 3 ) THE term "collector" as defined by Section 3 (c) of the Act means the Collector of a District, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act . Further Section 3a of the Act as inserted by A. P. Amendment Act No. 22 of 1976 empowers the Government to delegate its powers and functions to the District Collector. The delegation of powers to District Collector under Section 3a is altogether different from the power conferred by Section 3 (c) itself on the Government to specifically authorise/appoint any officer to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act. ( 4 ) IN exercise of their powers under Section 3a of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 1378, dt. 15. 10. 1975 authorising the District Collectors to exercise powers vested in the State Government under Section 5a of the Act and Section 17 (4) of the Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction of any dwelling houses for the poor. By G. O. Ms. No. 96 dt. 20. 1. 1976 the Government in exercise of their powers under Section 3 (c) of the Act appointed Revenue Divisional officers, Tahsildars and Revenue Block Development Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform functions of Collector under the Act for the purpose of acquisition of lands for dwelling houses to the poor. The question raised before this Court is whether Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5a of the Act. It is not denied that Mandal Revenue Officers discharge the functions of Tahsildars. Therefore, by reason of the powers conferred Mandal Revenue Officers have to perform functions of the Collector as per G. O. Ms. No. 96 dt. 20. 1. 1976, Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5a of the Act. ( 5 ) IN CH. VENKATARATNAM v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH His Lordship Hon ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (as he then was) considered the question whether it is competent for Tahsildar to conduct enquiry under Section 5a and submitted report to the Collector. 1976, Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5a of the Act. ( 5 ) IN CH. VENKATARATNAM v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH His Lordship Hon ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (as he then was) considered the question whether it is competent for Tahsildar to conduct enquiry under Section 5a and submitted report to the Collector. After referring to G. O. Ms. No. 1378, dt. 15. 10. 1975 His Lordship held as under:section 3a of the Act permits delegation of the functions of the Government to the District Collectors and in exercise of that power the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has delegated to the District Collector the authority to take a decision under Section 5a (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in cases relating to construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor. The Tahsildar has ample jurisdiction to conduct enquiry under Section 5a and submit the report to the Collector, who, in his turn, was delegated with the powers of the Government under Section 3a read with G. O. Ms. No. 1378 Rev. (K) Dated 15. 10. 1975 to take a decision on the report. A copy of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer prepared under Section 5a need not be supplied to the petitioner. In view of the above, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mandal Revenue Officer cannot conduct enquiry under Section 5a of the Act, cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) INSOFAR as other submissions are concerned, if the beneficiaries who are included in the list have already houses, it is needless to point out that they are not liable for further allotment of house sites. Under the existing Government policy an extent of 80 Sq. yards (eighty square yards) is allowed to house site to a poor person. If a person is already in possession of house or house site, he is not entitled for any further house site. The list prepared at the initial stage of land acquisition proposals can never be treated as final and after the land acquisition proceedings are completed after conducting socio economic survey a fresh list of beneficiaries has to be prepared. Merely because there are mistakes in the list of beneficiaries along with land acquisition proposals, land acquisition proposals themselves cannot be invalidated on that ground. Merely because there are mistakes in the list of beneficiaries along with land acquisition proposals, land acquisition proposals themselves cannot be invalidated on that ground. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the other grounds are concerned, I do not find any merit in the same. It is now well settled that the question - as to which land is better suited and the question whether the land proposed to be acquired is suitable, - are not justiciable in exercise of power of judicial review. It is for the authorities to decide these questions. It is presumed that while taking action under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, authorities have weighed the pros and cons of proposal to acquire particular land or delete particular land, and unless specific mala fides are attributed, these questions cannot be gone into. Though an averment is made that some persons in the Village have an eye on fertile land of petitioners and they are behind back to the land acquisition proposals, no factual foundation is laid and proved the mala fides. Insofar as the submission that the land is being acquired in such a manner that the left over land would become useless cannot be accepted. When the Civil Court on reference determines the compensation it has to consider various factors. As per Section 23 of the Act, the damage sustained by a person at the time of Collector taking possession of the land, and the damage sustained by the person at the time of Collector taking possession of the land by reason of acquisition injuriously affect other property or his earnings is relevant consideration. The petitioners can always putforth this ground for claiming appropriate compensation. The same cannot however be a ground to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition for the above reasons must be held to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without costs.